Section 3.0 State Risk Assessment August 2013

Transcription

1 Table of Contents Introduction Identifying Hazards Profiling Florida s Hazards Methodology for Analyzing Vulnerability Hazard Profiling Population Vulnerability Local Mitigation Strategies Assessing Vulnerability and Potential Losses Profiling Florida s Hazards Flood Profile Tropical Cyclones Profile Severe Storms and Tornadoes Profile Wildfire Profile Drought Profile Extreme Heat Profile Winter Storms and Freezes Profile Erosion Profile Sinkholes, Earthquakes, and Landslides Profile Tsunami Profile Solar Storm Profile Technological Hazards Profile Human-Caused Hazards Profile Terrorism Profile List of Tables Table 3.1 Resident Population by Age Groups for Most Populous States Table 3.2 Florida Natural Hazards Table 3.3 FEMA Major Disaster Declarations: Florida, State of Florida Enhanced Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 3.1

2 Table 3.4 Amount of Individual Assistance Funded Table 3.5 Executive Orders Table 3.6 Statewide County Population Summaries Table 3.7 Hazard Summary Table 3.8 Other Significant Flooding Occurrences Table 3.9 Flood Events in the State by Type ( ) Table and 2010 Census Growth Rate Comparison Table 3.11 Flood Policies in Force Top 5 States Table 3.12 Florida Flood Policies Table 3.13 Non-Mitigated Repetitive Loss Properties by County Table 3.14 Inland Flood Hazard, Population Table 3.15 Population in Coastal Flood Hazard, Category Table 3.16 Population in Coastal Flood Hazard, Category Table 3.17 Summary of Facilities in Storm Surge Areas in a Category 2 Hurricane Table 3.18 Summary of Facilities in Storm Surge Areas in a Category 5 Hurricane Table 3.19 Estimated Flooding Structures Loss Summary Table 3.20 Flood Events in the State by Type ( ) Table 3.21 Inland Flooding Loss Estimation for State Facilities Table 3.22 Coastal Flooding Loss Estimation for State Facilities Table 3.23 Saffir- Simpson Hurricane Wind Scale Table 3.24 Previous Tropical Cyclone Occurrences in the Past 10 Years Table 3.25 Significant Events beyond 10 Years Table 3.26 Estimated Structures Loss Summary from a Category Table 3.27 Estimated Structures Loss Summary from a Category Table 3.28 Historical Tropical Cyclones Summary Table 3.29 Facilities Losses Summary in a Category Table 3.30 Facilities Losses Summary in a Category Table 3.31 Enhanced Fujita Tornado Scale Table 3.32 Florida Severe Tornado Events Table 3.33 Frequency of Tornadoes by County, Table 3.34 Severe Storm Structures Summary State of Florida Enhanced Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 3.2

3 Table 3.35 Tornado Structures Summary Table 3.36 Tornado Facilities Summary Table 3.37 Significant Wildfires by Year Table 3.38 Wildfire Population by Level of Concern Category Table 3.39 Wildfire Structures Summary Table 3.40 Historical Wildfire Summary Table 3.41 Wildfire Facilities Summary Table 3.42 Palmer Drought Severity Index Table 3.43 Historical Occurrences of Drought Table 3.44 Drought Commodities Summary Table 3.45 Historical Occurrences of Extreme Heat Table 3.46 Historical Severe Winter Storms Table 3.47 Top 5 Counties in Agricultural Sales in Table 3.48 Florida Citrus Value of Sales On-tree from Table 3.49 Historical Winter Storm and Freeze Summary Table 3.50 Winter Weather Event Impacts on Florida Table 3.51 Erosion Contribution Factors Table 3.52 Erosion Control Milestones Table 3.53 Significant Erosion Contribution Events Table 3.54 Critically Eroded Managed Shoreline by Region Table 3.55 Number of Critical and Non-Critical Erosion Areas by County Table 3.56 Summary of Florida Coastal Erosion Areas Table 3.57 Sinkholes per County that were 50 Feet or Deeper Table 3.58 Significant Sinkhole Occurrences Table 3.59 Seismic Activity Reports Table 3.60 Reported Sinkholes in Florida Table 3.61 Earthquake Hazard, Population Table 3.62 Value of Structures KAC Sinkhole Risk (Sinkhole Structures Summary) Table 3.63 Value of Facilities at Risk to Earthquake Hazard Table 3.64 Previous Tsunami and Rogue Wave Occurrences Table 3.65 State Facility Estimated Losses to Tsunami State of Florida Enhanced Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 3.3

4 Table 3.66 Total Pipeline Mileage in Florida Table 3.67 Total Pipeline Mileage by Commodity Table 3.68 Previous Technological Hazard Occurrences Table 3.69 Major Terrorism Events in Florida since September 11, List of Figures Figure 3.1 Local Mitigation Strategy Renewal Dates Figure 3.2 Statewide Population Summary Figure 3.3 Total Insured State Facility Values by County Figure 3.4 Counties with High or Significant Hazard Dams Figure 3.5 Areas at Risk for Flooding Figure 3.6 Flood Hazard Rankings by County Figure 3.7 Dam Hazard Ranking by County Figure 3.8 Coastal Flood Depth from a Category 2 Hurricane Figure 3.9 Coastal Flood Depth from a Category 5 Hurricane Figure 3.10 Facility Values within 100-Year and 500-Year Inland Floodplains Figure 3.11 Values of Facilities Vulnerable to Storm Surge in a Category 2 Hurricane Figure 3.12 Values of Facilities Vulnerable to Storm Surge in a Category 5 Hurricane Figure 3.13 Tropical Cyclone Hazard Ranking by County Figure 3.14 Category 2 Hurricane Winds Probability of Occurrence Figure 3.15 Category 5 Hurricane Winds Probability of Occurrence Figure 3.16 Value of State Facilities Vulnerable to a Category 2 Hurricane Figure 3.17 Value of State Facilities Vulnerable to Category 5 Hurricane Figure 3.18 Severe Thunderstorms from 1950 to Figure 3.19 Tornado occurrences from 1950 to Figure 3.20 Number of Tornado Events since Figure 3.21 Number of Severe Storm Events since Figure 3.22 Number of Lightning Events since Figure 3.23 Tornado Hazard Rankings by County Figure 3.24 Severe Storm Hazard Rankings by County State of Florida Enhanced Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 3.4

5 Figure 3.25 Historical Thunderstorm occurrences per year Figure 3.26 Florida s Wildfire Susceptibility Figure 3.27 Wildfire Hazard Rankings by County Figure 3.28 Keetch-Byram Drought Index Figure 3.29 Drought Hazard Rankings by County Figure 3.30 Extreme Heat Hazard Rankings by County Figure 3.31 Crop Vulnerability by Month Figure 3.32 Winter Storm Hazard Rankings by County Figure 3.33 Freeze Hazard Rankings by County Figure 3.34 Erosion Hazard Rankings by County Figure 3.35 Identified Critical and Noncritical Shoreline Erosion Areas Figure 3.36 Sinkhole Occurrences Figure 3.37 Earthquake, Peak Ground Acceleration Figure 3.38 Sinkhole Hazard Rankings by County Figure 3.39 Earthquake Hazard Rankings by County Figure 3.40 Number of State Facilities Vulnerable to Peak Ground Acceleration Figure 3.41 Value of State Facilities Vulnerable to Peak Ground Acceleration Figure 3.42 Natural Gas Infrastructure in Florida Figure 3.43 Technological Hazard Rankings by County Figure 3.44 Mass Immigration Hazard Rankings by County Figure 3.45 Terrorism Hazard Rankings by County State of Florida Enhanced Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 3.5

6 Page intentionally left blank State of Florida Enhanced Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 3.6

7 Introduction Requirement 201.4(c)(2): The State plan must include a risk assessment that provides the factual basis for activities proposed in the strategy portion of the mitigation plan. Statewide risk assessments must characterize and analyze natural hazards and risks to provide a statewide overview. This overview will allow the State to compare potential losses throughout the State and to determine their priorities for implementing mitigation measures under the strategy, and to prioritize jurisdictions for receiving technical and financial support in developing more detailed local risk and vulnerability assessments. The risk assessment for the State of Florida Hazard Mitigation Plan (SHMP) provides the factual basis for developing a mitigation strategy for the state. This section profiles the natural, human-caused, and technological hazards that could possibly affect the state; determines which jurisdictions and populations are most vulnerable to each hazard; and estimates potential losses of state facilities for each hazard. This risk assessment was originally developed as part of the first version of the State Hazard Mitigation Plan in 2004 and was subsequently reviewed and approved by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to meet the state s requirements under the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 (DMA2K). The Florida Division of Emergency Management (DEM) contracted for the revision of this section in 2007, 2010, and again in The State Hazard Mitigation Plan Advisory Team (SHMPAT) has thoroughly reviewed all of the identified hazards and the respective profiles of each. Significant research has been conducted for each hazard and the following list provides information about the primary sources and methodologies used for this update: Declared Events: All federal and state declared events were researched and considered for this risk assessment. Any events occurring since the 2010 update have been added to the 2013 plan. Specifically, events from the last three years are discussed, as well as any significant historical events. Research includes geographic extent, number of occurrences, and the estimated damages and losses associated with the event. Hazus-MH 2.1 and geographic information systems (GIS) have also been used in the revision. National Climatic Data Center 1 (NCDC): This center maintains an ongoing database of all natural hazard events, with information about dates, locations, and estimated damages. This Web-based portal was used to further augment the hazard profiles in this assessment with additional data about events and their locations. This database records all events not just the major weather incidents that are declared events; therefore, this source significantly helped to update the various profiles. 1 State of Florida Enhanced Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 3.7

8 SHELDUS TM : The Spatial Hazard Events and Losses Database for the United States (SHELDUS) provides county-level hazard data for 18 different natural hazard events. The data is derived from several existing national data sources, such as the National Climatic Data Center and the National Geophysical Data Center s (NGDC) Tsunami Event Database. The content and detail of the data provided is still evolving, but helps inform the historical data on some of the natural hazards. SHMPAT Feedback: The SHMPAT has been an integral part of this update process. Various members have provided feedback and data about the individual hazards. This personalized data has been used to further focus this overall risk assessment. Internet Research: The Internet and other online research tools have been used. The focus of this research centers on historical events, detailed event descriptions, and financial information. Organizational Update In an effort to organize the risk assessment by individual hazard (as opposed to including information about all hazards within each required section), the State of Florida has elected to combine the data previously organized within the following topical sections: Section 3.2: Profiling Hazard Events and Assessing Vulnerability by Jurisdiction, Section 3.3: Assessing Vulnerability of State Facilities, Section 3.4: Estimating Potential Losses by Jurisdictions, and Section 3.5: Estimating Potential Losses of State Facilities. This content is covered in the new Section 3.2. Also new to the 2013 plan update is the inclusion of data and analysis outcomes for former Sections within each hazard profile again organized by hazard as opposed to topical section. The State of Florida believes this approach will allow each hazard to be evaluated with a single review of all data available in one central location and is preferable to the comparison of the previous four separate document sections, which contained information about each hazard. All maps in this document have been updated as of August 2012 with the most recent data available, unless otherwise notated. Local Mitigation Strategy Integration Currently, all 67 counties within the State of Florida have an approved local mitigation strategy (LMS). Each LMS has been considered and, when appropriate, this local information has been included in the state risk assessment. The State of Florida has one of the most successful local mitigation planning efforts in the country. State of Florida Enhanced Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 3.8

9 Figure 3.1 provides a complete status report for all counties with respect to their LMS renewal dates up to the year Figure 3.1 Local Mitigation Strategy Renewal Dates 3 Current Status and Future Maintenance As of 2013, this risk assessment was the most current and detailed hazard analysis for the State of Florida. The information has been analyzed using the most current data sets available at the time of revision and update. As this risk assessment is continually updated, this information will be used to further refine the current state mitigation strategies. 2 Information obtained through Florida Division of Emergency Management, Mitigation Section. 3 All maps found within Section 3.0 of the SHMP were updated as part of the revision process for the 2013 plan. These maps are based on available data and were created in August 2012 unless otherwise notated. State of Florida Enhanced Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 3.9

10 3.1 Identifying Hazards Requirement 201.4(c)(2)(i): The State risk assessment shall include an overview of the location of all natural hazards that can affect the State, including information on previous occurrences of hazard events, as well as the probability of future hazard events, using maps where appropriate. Florida continues to be one of the fastest growing states in the nation; in 2010, it was the fourth largest state based on population. Table 3.1 displays resident population statistics from the 2010 U.S. Census and lists the five most populated states and a breakdown of population by selected age group. Note that Florida is second after California for individuals over the age of 65. Table 3.1 Resident Population by Age Groups for Most Populous States 4 Geographic Area California Texas New York Florida Illinois Total 37,253,956 25,145,561 19,378,102 18,801,310 12,830,632 Under 18 Years 9,295,040 6,865,824 4,324,929 4,002,091 3,129, Years and Over 27,958,916 18,279,737 15,053,173 14,799,219 9,701, to 24 Years 2,765,949 1,817,079 1,410,935 1,228, , to 34 Years 5,317,877 3,613,473 2,659,337 2,289,545 1,775, to 49 Years 7,872,529 5,218,849 4,068,780 3,832,456 2,665, to 64 Years 6,599,045 4,272,560 3,723,596 3,677,959 2,403, Years and Over 4,246,514 2,601,886 2,617,943 3,259,602 1,609,213 This trend, coupled with the fact that a great majority of the population lives within 10 miles of the coastline, 5 makes Florida and its population extremely vulnerable to the impacts of natural and technological hazards. This plan is not intended to serve as a quantitative risk analysis and it is not intended to take the place of the in-depth hazard analyses that are being conducted at the local level as part of the LMS process, but data from these plans was used to further focus this risk assessment. This section of the state plan profiles the potential hazards that pose the greatest threat to the State of Florida. As part of the 2013 revision, a comprehensive list of hazards was compiled from the review of the following sources: Review of the state s most recent Hazard Mitigation Plan (2010) and the Comprehensive Emergency Management Plan (2010) Review of historical data of events that occurred over the past 30 years, including input from subject matter experts and lessons learned from previous years Review of hazards identified in guidance materials provided by the FEMA Region IV Office on identifying hazards Municipality Population on Florida Geographic Data Library (FGDL) State of Florida Enhanced Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 3.10

11 Assessment of National Climatic Data Center information about natural hazards Review of the vulnerability and risk analyses contained in the approved Local Mitigation Strategies for Florida counties Review of past state and federal disaster declarations Research of historical records and Web sites Research from the current Statewide Regional Evacuation Studies Many of the identified hazards are related (e.g., flooding can occur and tornadoes can develop during tropical storms) in the sense that other hazards may result from a disaster event, such as sinkholes stemming from flooding; in such instances, these hazards are not listed separately but concurrently. The 2013 updated SHMP accounts for the following hazards according to the most up-to-date information available: Flooding, including related potential for dam/dike failure or breach and sea level rise Tropical cyclones, including hurricanes, tropical storms, and coastal storms Severe Storms, thunderstorms, and tornadoes Wildfire Drought Extreme heat Winter storms and freezes Erosion Sinkholes, landslides, and seismic events Solar Storms Tsunamis Technological and human-caused events Table 3.2 Florida Natural Hazards lists all the natural hazards in Florida identified in the plan and provides details about the identification process. State of Florida Enhanced Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 3.11

12 Table 3.2 Florida Natural Hazards Hazard How Identified Why Identified Floods (including potential for dam failure and sea level rise) Tropical Cyclones Severe Storms & Tornadoes Review of past disaster declarations Review of Federal Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs) Input from state floodplain manager Identification of National Flood Insurance Plan (NFIP) repetitive loss properties in the state Research including new media and Internet resources Review of past disaster declarations Review of National Climate Data Center Severe Storms Database Review of National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration climatology data Research including new media and Internet resources Research including National Hurricane Center Review of past disaster declarations Review of the National Climate Data Center Severe Storms Database National Weather Service input and data Research including new media and Internet resources Florida is affected by flooding nearly every year Floods have caused extensive damage and loss of life in the state in the past There are a number of dams in the state, the breach or failure of which could affect nearby populations Sea level rise could affect coastal structures and lead to higher water levels Hurricanes and coastal storms affect Florida every year Hurricanes have caused extensive damage and loss of life across the state over the last 50 years 12 out of the last 15 federally declared disaster events in Florida were tropical storms or hurricanes 6 The most recent federally declared disaster event in Florida (October 18, 2012) was Hurricane Isaac. Potential risk to offshore oil and gas exploration and production infrastructure Florida experiences a tornado nearly every year Tornadoes have caused extensive damage and loss of life to state residents Two recent federally declared disaster events in Florida (May 27, 2009 and April 21, 2009) were severe storms with flooding, tornadoes, and straight-line winds 6 This statistic is current as of January 2, However, an earlier revision of this document from 2008 stated that eight out of the last 10 federally declared disaster events in Florida were hurricanes. Disaster #1539, which combines both Hurricane Charley and Tropical Storm Bonnie into one declaration, was apparently counted as two separate disaster events for the purposes of this document in For consistency, the 2009 statistic above also counts Disaster #1539 as two disaster events. State of Florida Enhanced Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 3.12

13 Hazard How Identified Why Identified Wildfires Drought Extreme Heat Winter Storms and Freezes Florida Forest Service statistics and input U.S. Department of Agriculture, Florida Forest Service mapping of fire, fuel, and Wildland-Urban Interface (WUI) Input from DEM about wildfires and the Emergency Operations Center (EOC) activations Public input including newspapers and media National Weather Service data National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration paleoclimatology data The U.S. Drought Monitor Keetch-Byram Drought Index (KBDI) Agricultural community throughout the state National Weather Service data Research including new media and Internet resources Review of past disaster declarations Review of National Climate Data Center Severe Storms Database National Weather Service input and data Public input including newspapers and media Florida experiences wildfires every year Development in much of the state is occurring at the WUI Cyclical drought patterns result in increases of brush and other dry materials; this increases the overall risk for significant fires As of May 29, 2012, there have been 2,032 wildfires affecting 93,338 acres on state and federal land during the 2012 calendar year 7 Significant drought trends during the last 10 years, including the driest back-to-back calendar years in Drought has a severe economic impact on the state due to the large amounts of citrus, agriculture, and livestock Significant impact to the population From , on average more people died from excessive heat than hurricanes, flooding, tornadoes, and lightning combined 8 Florida is affected by winter storms cyclically There have been significant freezes, particularly during the 1980s that affected the citrus industry There have been six federally declared disasters relating to winter storms and freezes since 1971 The population is unprepared for cold weather, with many having inadequate heating capabilities State of Florida Enhanced Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 3.13

14 Hazard How Identified Why Identified Erosion Sinkholes, Landslides, and Seismic Events Coordination with the Florida Department of Environmental Protection s Bureau of Beaches and Coastal Systems SHMPAT interview and input Evaluation of Erosion Hazards, the report from the Heinz Center that was presented to FEMA in April 2000 Looking at shoreline change maps Public input including newspapers and media Coordination with the Florida Geological Survey The Florida Subsidence Incident Report (SIR) Database Coordination with the Florida Department of Transportation Input from the Central United States Earthquake Consortium Due to the gradual, long-term erosion, as many as 1 in 4 houses along the coast could fall into the ocean in the next 60 years 9 Fifty-nine percent of Florida s beaches are currently experiencing erosion 10 Significant economic impact for the state due to property damages, loss of actual beachfront real estate, and effects on tourism Sinkholes are a common feature of Florida s landscape 3,378 sinkholes have been reported in the state since the 1940s 11, 175 of those developed as a result of Tropical Storm Debby Issues arise as development continues in high-risk areas Impact on the roads and physical infrastructure of the state Localized lowering of groundwater table for agricultural pumping can trigger sinkholes Historical earthquake events impacted Pensacola, FL previously State of Florida Enhanced Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 3.14

15 Hazard How Identified Why Identified Tsunamis Solar Storms Input from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Center for Tsunami Research Coordination with Division of Emergency Management Input from the U.S. Geological Survey Coordination with Division of Emergency Management Research including new media and Internet resources Tsunamis commonly occur in large bodies of water Almost all perimeters of Florida s boundaries are made up of large bodies of water Recent tsunamis from around the world have caused widespread destruction Residential and commercial development along Florida s coastlines is at risk to the effects of tsunamis Tsunami and rogue wave occurrence in Florida is rare with approximately four documented events (1755, 1886, 1992, 1995) 12 Potential tsunamis generation is possible by mass wasting events in the Canary and Cape Verde Islands based on geological evidence of their conjectured past impact on the east coast of the Bahamas Emerging threat which could significantly interfere with the electrical grid and critical infrastructure functionality 12 State of Florida Enhanced Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 3.15

16 Table 3.3 outlines each major disaster declaration that Florida has received from Florida over the last decade. This establishes the vulnerability and historic occurrences of hazards that Florida regularly deals with. Table 3.3 FEMA Major Disaster Declarations: Florida, Date Disaster Types Disaster Number 10/18/2012 Hurricane Isaac /03/2012 Tropical Storm Debby /27/2009 Severe Storms, Flooding, Tornadoes, and Straight-line Winds /21/2009 Severe Storms, Flooding, Tornadoes, and Straight-line Winds /27/2008 Hurricane Gustav /24/2008 Tropical Storm Fay /08/2007 Severe Storms, Tornadoes, and Flooding /03/2007 Severe Storms and Tornadoes /24/2005 Hurricane Wilma /28/2005 Hurricane Katrina /10/2005 Hurricane Dennis /26/2004 Hurricane Jeanne /16/2004 Hurricane Ivan /04/2004 Hurricane Frances /13/2004 Hurricane Charley and Tropical Storm Bonnie /29/2003 Severe Storms and Flooding /25/2003 Tornado 1460 The following financial statistics in Table 3.4 were provided by DEM and FEMA to show the magnitude of natural hazard events in the state based on the amount of Individual assistance (IA) funded. 14 This table also includes IA statistics for Tropical Storm Debby, which are accurate as of August 20, 2012, however, they will change following completion of this plan as assistance continues to be provided. At the time of plan drafting, IA amounts were not yet available for Hurricane Isaac State of Florida Enhanced Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 3.16

17 Table 3.4 Amount of Individual Assistance Funded 15 Declaration Amount of I.A. Declaration # Name Date Funded 10/18/ Hurricane Isaac Not available yet 07/03/ Tropical Storm Debby $20,926, /27/ Tornado, Heavy Rains, and Flooding $8,650,000 04/21/ Tornado, Heavy Rains, and Flooding $2,855,604 08/24/ Tropical Storm Fay $24,770,991 02/03/2007& 02/08/ & 1680 Severe Storms, Tornadoes, Flooding $28,518, /24/ Hurricane Wilma $340,387, /10/ Hurricane Dennis $21,550, /26/ Hurricane Jeanne $398,624, /16/ Hurricane Ivan $164,514, /04/ Hurricane Frances $411,860, /13/ Hurricane Charley $208,969, /25/ Tornado $11,840, $1,643,467, The following list in Table 3.5 details all of the Florida Governor s Executive Orders issued in relation to natural disasters in Florida from April 2006 to May In addition to the natural disasters referenced below, there have been several emergency management related executive orders issued, including those pertaining to the 2010 earthquake in Haiti and the 2010 Deepwater Horizon oil spill. However, only the executive orders pertaining to natural disasters within Florida are included below. Table 3.5 Executive Orders 16 Date Description IA Awarded EO # 05/25/2012 Tropical Storm Debby Yes /04/2011 Extension of No /05/2011 Extension of No /21/2011 Wildfires No /07/2011 Freezing Temperatures No /15/2010 Freezing Temperatures No /10/2010 Freezing Temperatures No /25/2010 Freezing Temperatures No /10/2010 Freezing Temperatures No /05/2010 Freezing Temperatures No /01/2009 Severe Weather Yes /09/2009 Hurricane Ida No /04/2009 Freezing Temperatures No State of Florida Enhanced Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 3.17

18 Date Description IA Awarded EO # 01/27/2009 Freezing Temperatures No /02/2009 Wildfires No /14/2009 Freezing Temperatures No /03/2008 Extension of Hurricane Ike No /05/2008 Hurricane Ike No /02/2008 Hurricane Hanna No /31/2008 Hurricane Gustav No /17/2008 Suspend Early Voting due to No /16/2008 Tropical Storm Fay Yes /13/2008 Tornado No /03/2007 Wildfires No /03/2007 Extension of No /02/2007 Hazardous Weather No /27/2007 Extension of No /28/2007 Extension of No /20/2006 Extension of Freeze for 7 days No /13/2006 Freeze Suspended Restrictions No /13/2006 Hurricane Wilma Extending No /01/2006 Terminated and No /29/2006 Correction to No /28/2006 Suspended Elections due to No /27/2006 Tropical Storm Ernesto No /10/2006 Roofing Repair Extension for 60 days No /27/2006 Wildfires Rescinding No /16/2006 Tropical Storm Alberto Rescinding No /12/2006 Roofing Repair Extension for 60 days No /12/2006 Tropical Storm Alberto No /13/2006 Hurricane Wilma Ext Trk #1075/ 1066 No State of Florida Enhanced Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 3.18

19 3.2 Profiling Florida s Hazards The information included in the following sub-sections provides detailed information about the hazards that affect Florida as well as the changes that were made from the previous plan Methodology for Analyzing Vulnerability In conducting the 2010 profiling and vulnerability analysis of hazard events, the SHMPAT reviewed the official guidance and information from FEMA and the Emergency Management Accreditation Program (EMAP) regarding the specific elements of a complete hazard analysis. The SHMPAT risk assessment sub-group elected to join the Profiling Hazards Section and the Assessing Vulnerability by Jurisdiction Section into one section for a more consistent flow and easier referencing for those using this document; this approach was maintained for the 2013 update. Based on this research, SHMPAT considered the following elements for this vulnerability, impact, and consequence analysis: The overall vulnerability of each jurisdiction within the state, including the vulnerability of its residents, livestock, agriculture, property, facilities, and state infrastructure. Vulnerability of specific state-owned facilities within each jurisdiction. Potential losses of life and property within each jurisdiction, including the ongoing economic and financial impact to the State of Florida. The health and safety (including injury and death) of the population during an event. The state government s ability to continue essential government operations and to deliver essential services to the population. Potential impact to the state s Emergency Management Program operations. The overall environmental impact, including any long-term or residual effects. The state s regulatory and contractual obligation to the public and the public s confidence in the state s response and recovery abilities, including financial responsibility. A number of factors were considered in assessing the risk of each hazard event including the frequency of occurrence, the severity of the event, and the areas vulnerable to the impact of each event. These factors were assigned numerical values in the assessment as follows: Frequency of occurrence 1. Annual event 2. Approximately every 1-5 years 3. Approximately every 5 10 years 4. Approximately every years 5. Greater than 30 years State of Florida Enhanced Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 3.19

20 Vulnerability impact areas a. Public b. Responder c. Continuity of Operations (COOP) and program operations d. Property, facilities, infrastructure e. Delivery of services f. The environment g. Economic condition h. Public confidence in jurisdiction s governance The jurisdictional vulnerability assessment was conducted on a state level for the identified hazards with the integration of the local risk assessments. Since June 2009, local mitigation plans for all 67 of Florida s counties have been approved by FEMA under the requirements of the DMA2K. The local risk assessments are publicly available, and data from the plans was used for this assessment to examine vulnerability by local jurisdictions. The SHMPAT conducted an extensive search for information and data about the overall vulnerability of the state. The initiatives involved in this assessment include: Interviews with state agencies about best available data for their facilities and programs. Coordination with Florida Department of Financial Services (DFS) and DEM regarding state-owned and operated facilities, and other existing state databases. Research of public records including newspapers and the Internet. Communication with federal agencies for access to national data sets for weather, dams, highways, and other critical infrastructure. Using this baseline data, the SHMPAT determined three distinct methodologies for analyzing the overall vulnerability of the state. The combination of the three methods gives a solid and complementary perspective of the big picture in Florida. The following list details the three methodologies: Local Plan Integration: Florida has 67 jurisdictions that have completed the rigorous FEMA approval process under the DMA2K. These county jurisdictions developed detailed risk assessments and mitigation strategies for their specific geographic areas, and these plans were incorporated into this state-level vulnerability analysis. Hazus-MH 2.1 (FEMA s loss estimation software): The Hazus-MH 2.1-driven methodology uses a statistical approach and mathematical modeling of risks to predict a hazard s frequency of occurrence and estimated impacts based on recorded or historic damage information. The Hazus-MH 2.1 risk assessment methodology is parametric in that distinct hazard and inventory parameters (wind speed and building types) were modeled using the Hazus-MH 2.1 software to determine the impact (damages and losses) on the built environment. The Hazus-MH 2.1 software was used to estimate losses from wind (hurricane and tornado) and flood hazards. Statistical Risk Assessment Methodology: The statistical risk assessment methodology was applied to analyze hazards of concern that are outside the scope of the Hazus-MH 2.1 software. State of Florida Enhanced Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 3.20

21 Each approach provided estimates for the potential impact and consequences by using a common, systematic framework for evaluation. During the 2013 update, the SHMPAT collected the 67 approved LMS plans and used the local risk assessment data in the development of this section of the plan. Updated LMS plans that were received for review by the State Mitigation Planning Unit prior to May 1, 2012 were incorporated into the 2013 state risk assessment. I Statistical Risk Assessment Methodology Risk associated with some natural hazards was analyzed using a statistical assessment methodology developed and used specifically for the 2013 plan update. Since automated software was not available to analyze all hazards, manual statistical assessments were performed by applying modeling principles used by FEMA s Hazus-MH 2.1 software. The general steps used in the statistical risk assessment methodology are summarized in the following list: Compile data from national and local sources Conduct statistical analysis of data to relate historical patterns within data to existing hazard models (i.e., minimum, maximum, average, and standard deviation) Categorize hazard parameters for each hazard to be modeled (e.g., hurricane) Develop model parameters based on analysis of data, existing hazard models, and risk engineering judgment Apply hazard model, including: Analysis of frequency of hazard occurrence Analysis of intensity and damage parameters of hazard occurrence Development of intensity and frequency tables and curves based on observed data Development of simple damage function to relate hazard intensity to a level of damage (e.g., one flood equals some dollar amount in estimated damages) Development of exceedance and frequency curves relating a level of damage for each hazard to an annual probability of occurrence Development of loss estimate Hazard Profiling The profiling process for hazard events considered historical records, geographic area, and probability for future occurrences. As part of the 2013 plan revision, each hazard was reconsidered and new information was added for the period. The update focused on new information relating to the following subjects: General information and research Historical occurrences between 2010 and June 2012 Geographic extent of the hazard, including detailed maps Analysis of the probability of an event occurring in the future Census and demographic information State of Florida Enhanced Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 3.21

22 In previous years, the risk assessment section contained a hazard consequence table based on requirements of EMAP. For the 2013 plan this table has been moved to Appendix C: Risk Assessment Tables. The information contained in the hazard consequence table is also available in Appendix D: Hazard Summary Sheets in an easier to read format. This table overviews the following areas: Frequency of occurrence: based on historical observation, how often the type or level of hazard will occur. Impact on Public: based on historical observation and demographic information and study, how the type or level of hazard would affect the general public and their daily lives. Impact on Responder: based on historical observation and study, how the type or level of hazard would affect responders ability to save lives, protect property and carry out their mission. Impact on continuity of operations / program operations: based on historical observation and study, how the type or level of hazard would affect the operation of facilities and execution of services in support of disaster and daily operations. Impact on property, facilities, and infrastructure: based on historical observation, study and modeling, how the type or level of hazard would affect county facilities, critical infrastructure, and other structures. Impact on delivery of services: based on historical observation and study, how the type or level of hazard would affect the public or private delivery of essential services to the affected or neighboring population. Impact on the environment: based on historical observation, study and modeling, how the type or level of hazard would affect the environment, and associated affects that could cause (e.g., debris) Impact on the economic condition: based on historical observation, study and modeling, how the type or level of hazard would affect the economic success and viability of local, state and national enterprises, and longer-term impacts to supply chain, or commodity requirements. Impact on the public s confidence in jurisdiction s governance: based on historical observation and study, how the type or level of hazard would affect the view the public had on the elected leadership of the state Population Vulnerability For many years, the State of Florida has experienced population growth. Between 2000 and 2010, the state s population grew by 17.6 percent. 17 The 2013 update to the mitigation plan reflects updated population totals from the 2010 U.S. Census. This dataset is also used for the baseline population data in Hazus-MH State of Florida Enhanced Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 3.22

23 Table 3.6 provides 2010 population figures for each county as well as the percent change since 2000 and Figure 3.2 provides a graphical representation of the population figures, by county. Table 3.6 Statewide County Population Summaries 18 Jurisdiction 2010 Census Percent Change Total Change 2000 Census Florida 18,801, ,818,486 15,982,824 Alachua 247, , ,955 Baker 27, ,856 22,259 Bay 168, , ,217 Bradford 28, ,432 26,088 Brevard 543, , ,230 Broward 1,748, ,048 1,623,018 Calhoun 14, ,608 13,017 Charlotte 159, , ,627 Citrus 141, , ,085 Clay 190, , ,814 Collier 321, , ,377 Columbia 67, ,018 56,513 DeSoto 34, ,653 32,209 Dixie 16, ,595 13,827 Duval 864, , ,879 Escambia 297, , ,410 Flagler 95, ,864 49,832 Franklin 11, ,720 9,829 Gadsden 46, ,302 45,087 Gilchrist 16, ,502 14,437 Glades 12, ,308 10,576 Gulf 15, ,303 14,560 Hamilton 14, ,472 13,327 Hardee 27, ,938 Hendry 39, ,930 36,210 Hernando 172, , ,802 Highlands 98, ,420 87,366 Hillsborough 1,229, , ,948 Holmes 19, ,363 18,564 Indian River 138, , ,947 Jackson 49, ,991 46,755 Jefferson 14, ,859 12,902 Lafayette 8, ,848 7, Florida Office of Economic and Demographic Research, 2010 Census County Profiles. State of Florida Enhanced Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 3.23

24 Jurisdiction 2010 Census Percent Change Total Change 2000 Census Lake 297, , ,527 Lee 618, , ,888 Leon 275, , ,452 Levy 40, ,351 34,450 Liberty 8, ,344 7,021 Madison 19, ,733 Manatee 322, , ,002 Marion 331, , ,916 Martin 146, , ,731 Miami-Dade 2,496, ,656 2,253,779 Monroe 73, ,499 79,589 Nassau 73, ,651 57,663 Okaloosa 180, , ,498 Okeechobee 39, ,086 35,910 Orange 1,145, , ,344 Osceola 268, , ,493 Palm Beach 1,320, ,943 1,131,191 Pasco 464, , ,768 Pinellas 916, , ,495 Polk 602, , ,924 Putnam 74, ,941 70,423 St. Johns 190, , ,135 St. Lucie 277, , ,695 Santa Rosa 151, , ,743 Sarasota 379, , ,961 Seminole 422, , ,199 Sumter 93, ,075 53,345 Suwannee 41, ,707 34,844 Taylor 22, ,314 19,256 Union 15, ,093 13,442 Volusia 494, , ,343 Wakulla 30, ,913 22,863 Walton 55, ,442 40,601 Washington 24, ,923 20,973 State of Florida Enhanced Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 3.24

25 Figure 3.2 Statewide Population Summary 19 A detailed listing by county of the total occupancy values for each type of key real estate: residential, medical, industrial, agricultural, educational, and government, has been included in Appendix C: Risk Assessment Tables Local Mitigation Strategies I. Local Mitigation Strategy (LMS) Collection and Integration During the 2013 revision and update process, the SHMPAT focused on producing a statewide vulnerability analysis, which included information provided by the 67 LMS risk assessments. All 67 counties within the State of Florida have a FEMA approved LMS. Copies of all county LMS plans are kept by DEM State of Florida Enhanced Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 3.25

26 The risk assessment sections from the 67 LMS plans considered during the update process included the following: Hazard identification, including location Hazard probability, extent, and magnitude Hazard impacts Local vulnerabilities Locally estimated losses II. Hazard Summary Jurisdiction-level hazard data was reviewed individually, and a qualitative determination was made regarding the vulnerability of the jurisdiction to the specific hazard. Significant variation exists in the way hazards are described and quantified across Florida s counties, requiring some data and variables to be reclassified and/or re-categorized. Differences were equated to the state s ranking scale described below, and the table was sent out to each of the 67 counties for their concurrence or changes. The qualitative rankings for each hazard were based on a combination of factors discussed in the LMS plans: Probability of the hazard occurring in the jurisdiction Potential magnitude and severity of the hazard in the area Size of the population at risk in the jurisdiction Growth and development trends for the jurisdictions, especially in areas that are affected by the hazard Existence of large populations with special needs such as the elderly, the poor, and the non-english speaking communities Critical facilities and infrastructure that are vulnerable to the hazard III. Statewide Matrix The qualitative rankings for the hazards from each plan were collated to develop a statewide matrix for hazards and jurisdictions. Table 3.7 shows all of the hazard rankings from all local jurisdictions. The table also aided in the production of the county risk maps provided through the remainder of the plan. Hazards were ranked for each county based on the following ranking scale: H High Hazard Ranking (mapped in red) MH Medium/High Hazard Ranking (mapped in pink) M Medium Hazard Ranking (mapped in yellow) L Low Hazard Ranking (mapped in green) Not Identified (mapped in base color of tan) State of Florida Enhanced Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 3.26

27 The two-letter codes at the top of the table correspond to the following hazards: DF Dam Failure DR Drought EH Extreme Heat ER Erosion FL Flooding FR Freezes HU Hurricanes LS Landslides MM Mass Migration SH Sinkholes SM Seismic Events SS Severe Storms TC Technological Events TO Tornadoes TR Terrorism WF Wildfires WS Winter Storms Tsunamis were not included as part of this table due to the fact that many coastal counties either discussed storm surge and tsunami risk simultaneously or it was determined that they were not at risk. State of Florida Enhanced Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 3.27

28 Table 3.7 Hazard Summary 20 County FL DF HU TO SS WF DR EH WS FR ER SH LS SM TR TC MM Alachua M H M L M L L L L H Baker MH L H MH M H M L M M L L L L L L L Bay H H H M L Bradford H L MH H H H MH MH M M L L L L Brevard H L H H H H MH L L L M L L L H H L Broward H H H H M M L M L M L Calhoun L L H H H H M M M M L L L L L L Charlotte H M H MH H M MH L MH L L Citrus H L H MH H M M L MH MH Clay MH M H MH MH MH M MH M M M L L M L Collier MH H MH M M M M L L L Columbia M M L H M L L L M DeSoto H H M M H L M L Dixie H L H M M M M M L L L Duval H H L L H M L L L L Escambia H L H L H M M L M L M L L L Flagler M L H MH MH H H L L Franklin H L H MH MH M M MH MH L L MH Gadsden MH L H M H MH MH L M H H L L L Gilchrist H H MH MH H M L MH MH M H L Glades H MH H H H MH MH M L L L Gulf H L H M MH MH MH H L H L M MH Hamilton H L H MH MH H H H MH MH M H Hardee H H L M L M M M L Hendry M L H M H H H H M M L L L L Hernando H H MH MH MH MH L M M MH M L Highlands H H H H M H L L L L L M 20 This table developed based on the 67 county Local Mitigation Strategies. State of Florida Enhanced Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 3.28

29 County FL DF HU TO SS WF DR EH WS FR ER SH LS SM TR TC MM Hillsborough M L H MH H M M L L L L M L Holmes H H H MH H MH MH M M L L Indian River H H MH MH L MH MH MH MH M M L L M M Jackson MH H H M M M MH L MH L L Jefferson H L MH MH M H MH MH MH M L M L L H Lafayette H H H MH H H H MH MH L L L L L Lake H H L H M M M L M L Lee H L H H MH H M M M M H L L Leon M L H M M H M L L L L M Levy H L MH M M M M M M L M Liberty H H M H M M M L L Madison H H H H M M M L Manatee H L H H H H M M M M M L L L Marion L H H H L L L L MH Martin MH H L MH M M M L L L M L Miami-Dade H H M H M L L L M L M Monroe H H M MH L L L L L L M Nassau MH L H MH M MH M L M M M L L L L M Okaloosa H L H M H M M L L L L L L L Okeechobee M H H H MH L L L L L L Orange H H H H L H L L M L Osceola H H H M H M H H L L Palm Beach H L H MH MH M MH M L L L L L L M M L Pasco H L H H M H L L L H H L L M L L Pinellas M H M H M M H L L H M L M M Polk M H H H H M M M M M Putnam H M M M H H M M M M M M L L M Santa Rosa MH L M H H L M M M M H L L Sarasota H L H L H H L H L L Seminole MH MH MH MH MH MH MH MH L MH MH MH L St. Johns MH H MH MH MH L L M M L L L M L State of Florida Enhanced Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 3.29

30 County FL DF HU TO SS WF DR EH WS FR ER SH LS SM TR TC MM St. Lucie H L H L M M L M M M L L L Sumter M H H H H M M Suwannee H H MH H H M H M H Taylor MH H MH MH M M L L L Union H H M MH H M M M L L M Volusia H H H M H H M L L M L L M L Wakulla H L H M M L L L M L Walton H L H H H L L L L L H L Washington H MH H M M M M M M L MH M L State of Florida Enhanced Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 3.30

31 IV. Hazard Mapping by Jurisdiction The statewide matrix was imported into a GIS in order to map the areas at risk. A map was developed for each hazard, showing all jurisdictions together with their respective levels of risk to that specific hazard. The maps are included in the subsequent sections for each identified hazard. The process of assessing local plans and mapping by jurisdiction was followed for all local plans, and the data was incorporated into the 2013 update of this plan. With the help of this information, the state s vulnerability was based on local data as well as the state-level data. As the local plans are updated, the information from such plans will be collected and added to subsequent versions of the State Hazard Mitigation Plan Assessing Vulnerability and Potential Losses Requirement 201.4(c)(2)(ii): The risk assessment shall include an overview and analysis of the state s vulnerability to the hazards described in this paragraph (c)(2), based on estimates provided in the state risk assessment. The state shall describe vulnerability in terms of the jurisdictions most threatened by the identified hazards, and most vulnerable to damage and loss associated with hazard events. State-owned or operated critical facilities located in the identified hazard areas shall also be addressed. Requirement 201.4(c)(2)(iii): The state risk assessment shall include an overview and analysis of potential losses to the identified vulnerable structures, based on estimates provided in local risk assessments as well as the state risk assessment. Requirement 201.4(c)(2)(iii): The state shall estimate the potential dollar losses to state owned or operated buildings, infrastructure, and critical facilities located in the identified hazard areas. I. Assessing the Vulnerability of State Facilities For the 2013 plan update, information assessing the vulnerability of state facilities follows information about hazard events and the vulnerability of jurisdictions instead of in completely different plan sections. As the State of Florida remains vulnerable to natural hazards, state-owned facilities are equally at risk to incur damages due to hazard occurrences. However, the state s resources, both monetary and fixed assets, depend heavily on these facilities and their functions. In developing this portion of the state plan, the SHMPAT coordinated with the Florida Department of Financial Services (DFS), which maintains a database of all state-owned facilities. This database, current as of August 2012, includes critical and non-critical facilities and stateowned infrastructure, as well as associated values for building structure and contents. The state plan, however, does not include a detailed description of each facility. Due to the nature of information included in the list, detailed information of the facility may be classified and cannot be included in this plan. Information from that list is made available as State of Florida Enhanced Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 3.31

32 needed and with limited access. 20,287 state facilities at an approximate aggregate insured value of $41.8 billion were analyzed for each hazard. The 2013 update analysis methodologies and results included the following: The detailed study of the state s most vulnerable facilities with regard to damages and losses associated with each hazard event. The detailed study of the state s most vulnerable facilities with regard to current and future development. A summary of the total insured values, by county, is provided in Figure 3.3. A detailed listed of the number of facilities and insured value by county is provided in Appendix C: Risk Assessment Tables. Figure 3.3 Total Insured State Facility Values by County Data obtained from a Florida Department of Financial Services Database and integrated via GIS analysis. State of Florida Enhanced Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 3.32

33 II. Estimating Potential Losses by Jurisdictions For the 2013 plan update, each hazard section includes a sub-section titled Estimating Potential Losses by Jurisdiction. The State of Florida treats each county as one of its jurisdictions, whereas local plans use different determinations for considering what constitutes a jurisdiction. Information under this heading provides specific details about the potential losses in each county, or jurisdiction, associated with each hazard type. The SHMPAT reviewed this section and has researched the state s potential for losses with regard to jurisdictions at risk. The planning team took into consideration recent development-related changes, as well as applicable new or revised building codes, land use, and future development trends statewide. Informed by multiple levels of review, a public comment process, and extensive research, the planning team made every effort to use the best available data for each hazard type in determining statewide loss estimates. Methodology for Estimating Potential Losses by Jurisdiction The 2010 U.S. Census data was used for determining losses by jurisdiction. This updated information was provided with associated demographics information for all analysis. Using this data allowed the estimation process to proceed without having to use the Department of Revenue s data like the 2010 plan did. When applicable, Hazus-MH 2.1 was used to simulate damages based on new census data and values of structures in the jurisdiction that would likely be affected by corresponding incidents. Specific sources and approaches are included in each applicable hazard section. Loss Estimation Data on damage loss amounts for hazard events was obtained from the NCDC searchable database. The database presents losses for events in terms of event records with loss amounts. Annualized losses for hazards were calculated by summarizing these loss amounts over the span of time for the loss records. The database does not include any loss data for sinkholes. Other data used for loss estimation was obtained from the National Hurricane Center preliminary reports. The economic loss results are presented here using two interrelated risk indicators: The annualized loss (AL), which is the estimated long-term value of losses to the general building stock in any single year in a specified geographic area (i.e., county). The annualized loss ratio (ALR), which expresses estimated annualized loss as a fraction of the building inventory replacement value. The estimated annualized loss addresses the two key components of risk the probability of the hazard occurring in the study area and the consequences of the hazard largely a function of building construction type and quality, and of the intensity of the hazard event. By annualizing estimated losses, the annualized loss calculation factors in historic patterns of frequent, smaller events and infrequent but larger events to provide a balanced presentation of the risk. State of Florida Enhanced Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 3.33

34 The ALR represents the annualized loss as a fraction of the replacement value of the local building inventory. This ratio is calculated throughout the risk assessment by using the following formula: ALR = Annualized Losses a Total Exposure at Risk The ALR gauges the relationship between average annualized loss and building replacement value. This ratio can be used as a measure of relative risk among areas since it is normalized by replacement value. It can be directly compared across different geographic units such as metropolitan areas or counties. In general, presenting results in the annualized form serves on three fronts: Contributing potential losses from all future disasters are accounted for with this approach. Different hazards are readily comparable and hence easier to rank. With respect to evaluating mitigation alternatives, the use of annualized losses is the most objective approach to serve for this purpose. In conducting the 2013 estimation of potential losses from hazard events, official guidance and information from FEMA and EMAP regarding the specific elements for loss estimation were reviewed. After the research phase, all available data was collated and used to estimate losses for each identified hazard. Using baseline data, the analysis primarily used information from the NCDC Storm Events Database. This database is maintained by the National Climatic Data Center (NCDC), an organization within the NOAA. The database contains historical records for local events, and it reports information about quantities, locations, deaths, injuries, property damage, and crop damage. Only the property and crop damage statistics are used as the basis for estimation of annualized losses. The previously mentioned methodology produced an annualized loss estimate per hazard for the State of Florida. Since hazards and losses in this plan are summarized at the county level, a method was needed for dividing the state annualized loss estimate by county. The SHMPAT used a vulnerability weighting for each county to assign the annualized loss estimate for that county. Each weight was derived from the total value of the structures that reside within the overlying hazard zones of each county. Greater weights were assigned to higher structure values residing within high-hazard zones. The SHMPAT considered the issues related to estimating losses on a statewide basis and noted that any scenario-based modeling would provide statistics and estimations only for the geographic area impacted by the scenario. Therefore, the team elected not to attempt this type of loss estimation. Instead, the focus was on the overall financial exposure for the high-risk areas and the average damage amounts from past events as the primary tools for estimating potential future losses on a statewide basis. State of Florida Enhanced Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 3.34

35 III. Estimating Potential Losses of State Facilities As part of the 2013 plan update process, the SHMPAT reviewed the existing loss estimations from the original 2004 State Hazard Mitigation Plan. Using these original estimations as the starting point, the SHMPAT developed a more detailed analysis for all the profiled hazards. This section provides specific details about the following items: The original 2004 estimation methodologies and results The 2013 update process used to enhance previous plan assessments The detailed study of the state s potential losses associated with each hazard event for state facilities The SHMPAT has reviewed this entire section thoroughly and has fully researched the state s potential for losses in terms of facilities at risk. Through the public process and existing relationships with agencies that collect data, the team researched all relevant sources of data for use in the development of this analysis. The best available data for each category was used in this loss estimation Methodology for Estimating Losses for State Facilities In 2013, the SHMPAT provided the following explanation of the process used to estimate potential losses on a statewide basis for the profiled hazards. Based upon the risk assessment methodology and the loss estimation methodology described herein, potential losses for facilities owned by the State of Florida were calculated and are presented within each hazard write up and in Appendix C: Risk Assessment Tables. To obtain facility loss estimates, an ALR is first computed for each county, using as its two components the loss estimate value and the total value of the structures in the county, as summarized from the Department of Financial Services state facility data. Applying this annualized loss ratio for the county against the total insured value of the state facilities in the county yields a loss estimate value for the facilities. As discussed herein, the state plan does not include a detailed description of each facility, nor does it identify whether a facility or infrastructure is critical or non-critical. Due to its size and format, it was not possible to include the database in this plan. A list of state critical facilities and infrastructure was compiled as part of the state s Homeland Security initiative. However, due to the nature of information included in the list, detailed information about a facility may be classified and cannot be included in this plan. State of Florida Enhanced Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 3.35

36 3.3 Profiling Florida s Hazards The following profiles will analyze each hazard, both natural, technological, and manmade, that have been determined that Florida is at risk of Flood Profile I. Flood Description and Background Information Flood or flooding refers to the general or temporary conditions of partial or complete inundation of normally dry land areas from the overflow of inland or tidal water and of surface water runoff from any source. Floodplains are defined as any land areas susceptible to being inundated by water from any flooding source. Although storm surge presents the potential for loss of life, a study conducted from 1970 to 1999 by the National Hurricane Center found that freshwater flooding accounted for more than half (59%) of the tropical cyclone deaths in the United States. 22 FEMA estimates that about 41 percent of Florida is flood prone, which is the highest percentage of all 50 states. 23 Because of the potential for flood damage, Florida has the most flood insurance policies required by the National Flood Insurance Program than any other state. 24 More information about the number of policies in Florida by community can be found in Appendix H: NFIP Policy Statistics and more information about repetitive flood loss structures can be found in Section 4: Goals and Capabilities and Section 7: Severe Repetitive Loss Outreach Strategy. In Florida, several variations of flooding occur due to the effects of severe thunderstorms, hurricanes, seasonal rain, and other weather-related conditions. The loss of life, personal property, crops, business facilities, utilities, and transportation are major impacts of flooding. Floodwaters present an additional hazard as a public health problem when they inundate drinking water facilities, chemical and waste storage facilities, wastewater treatment facilities, and solid waste disposal sites. Coastal Flooding Coastal flooding is usually the result of a severe weather system such as a severe thunderstorm, hurricane, or tropical storm with high winds. Water driven ashore by the wind, known as a storm surge, is the main cause of coastal flooding. The damaging effects to structures in the beach areas are caused by a combination of higher levels of storm surge, winds, waves, rains, erosion, and battering by debris. Sea walls, jetties, and the beach areas are affected by coastal flooding, and the loss over a period of time State of Florida Enhanced Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 3.36

37 becomes costly. Loss of life and property damage are often more severe because a storm surge involves velocity wave action and accompanying winds. Inland or Riverine Flooding Florida s low-lying topography combined with its subtropical climate makes it highly vulnerable to inland or riverine flooding. Riverine flooding occurs when the flow of runoff is greater than the carrying capacities of the natural drainage systems. Portions of major drainage basins in Alabama and Georgia drain into the rivers in north Florida, and excessive rainfall in these southern states often causes flood conditions in Florida. The State of Florida has nearly 121,000 census blocks that are potentially threatened by riverine flooding. This exposure translates to nearly $880 billion in property. Estimated annual loss for the state associated with riverine flooding is $255 million. 25 However, different datasets make for numerous possible calculations. Flash floods present more significant safety risks than other riverine floods because of the rapid onset, the high water velocity, the potential for channel scour, and the debris load. In addition, more than one flood crest may result from a series of fast moving storms. Sudden destruction of structures and the washout of access routes may result in the loss of life. Flood damage is proportional to the volume and the velocity of the water. High volumes of water can move heavy objects and undermine roads and bridges. Flooding can occur as a result of precipitation upstream without any precipitation occurring near the flooded areas. Although rural flooding is dangerous to fewer people and may be less costly than urban flooding, it can cause great damage to agricultural operations. Flooding can also facilitate other hazards such as health concerns and hazardous material events. Riverine Reach The influence of river flooding on river stage gradually decreases with proximity to the Gulf, and the influence of tides and storm surges on river stage gradually increases the flood levels in bodies of water. Tides affect river stages at low and medium flows in the upper tidal reach and at all flows in the lower tidal reach. In the lower part of the lower tidal reach, stages during storm surges are higher than river flood stages. Soils are present in all riverine wetland forests, but the most nutrient-rich swamps are dry during low-flow periods. Most surface soils in the deepest riverine swamps, upper and lower tidal swamps and lower tidal mixed forests are continuously saturated mucks. Upper Tidal Reach Upper tidal mixed forests are found on low levees or in transitional areas between swamps and higher forest types. Upper tidal swamps are present at elevations below median 25 %20State%20Risk%20Assessment.pdf State of Florida Enhanced Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 3.37

38 monthly high stage and usually have surface soils that are permanently saturated mucks. The lower Suwannee River is the best example of an upper tidal reach in Florida. Lower Tidal Reach Lower tidal hammocks in a floodplain are found on elevations that do not receive regular tidal inundation or frequent river flooding, but have a high water table and are briefly inundated by storm surges several times a decade. The lower Suwannee River is an example. Lower tidal mixed forests include swamps with numerous small hummocks and are found on deep muck soils that are below the elevation of the median daily or monthly high stage. Floodplains Mitigation measures are taken to reduce the flood risk in the floodplain; however, development is not prohibited. Management of floodplains can be handled through building codes, local ordinances, and zoning regulations to mitigate the damage from floodwaters. The floodway is the channel of a watercourse and those portions of the adjoining floodplain providing the passage of the 100-year flood stage waters. The floodway fringe is the portion of the floodplain where complete development will cause a significant rise (typically one foot) in the 100-year floodplain. Flood stage is the water elevation at which damage to personal property is significant. Locally heavy precipitation may produce flooding in areas other than delineated floodplains or along recognized drainage channels. If local conditions cannot accommodate intense precipitation through a combination of infiltration and surface runoff, water may accumulate and cause flooding problems. Floodplains cover a very large area in Florida, and it is unlikely that any undeveloped land will stay in its natural state. Pressure from developers to build, and the potential tax revenues from developments, make it difficult to keep floodplains open. This lack of control coupled with inadequate information available regarding the extent of floodplains and flood prone areas typically leads to unsound development on floodplain land. Floodplains offer many benefits to communities by providing natural flood and erosion control, natural water filtration processes, habitats for plant and animal communities, as well as recreational areas and scientific field-study. Acting as natural flood storage areas, floodplains decrease the destructive force of floodwaters downstream by reducing the velocity of floodwaters. Though floodplain vegetation is partly responsible for slowing the rush of floodwaters, it also serves other valuable functions such as reducing soil erosion, trapping floodwater sediment that increases soil fertility by providing nutrients to estuarine environments, and reducing sediment load downstream. The chemical filtration processes and biological activity that occur within a floodplain can also help reduce flood-generated pollution from agricultural and urban runoff and sewage overflow. Floodplains preserve and recharge groundwater supplies and provide opportunities for recreation, education, and scientific study. Urban expansion may encourage development in floodplains that would otherwise be reserved for these benefits. State of Florida Enhanced Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 3.38

39 The 10-year floodplain of the lower Suwannee River is a good example of the overall topography of the floodplain areas within the state. The lower Suwannee River runs across the entire north-central area of the state and starts from its confluence with the Santa Fe River to the tree line near the Gulf of Mexico. The Suwannee s floodplain is divided into three reaches based on changes in hydrology, vegetation, and soils with proximity to the coast: riverine (non-tidal), upper tidal and lower tidal. Flash Flooding As Florida s population has rapidly increased since 1960, so has the profile of the state s landscape. Rapid urbanization has manifested itself in the form of increased impervious surface areas such as asphalt roads, concrete areas, sidewalks, and structures. This increase has led to a much higher level of flash flooding during heavy rainstorms and also during flooding events. The design of urban drainage systems in the past has concentrated on disposing of storm water as rapidly and efficiently as possible in a concentrated area; however, stormwater is often collected and transported elsewhere without a comprehensive strategy for dealing with it as a system. As a result, drainage in many of Florida s urbanized areas is often piecemeal and lacking comprehensive design. Dam/Dike Failure The failure of a dam or dike may also result in a flood event. The amount of water impounded is measured in acre-feet; an acre-foot of water is the volume that covers an acre of land to a depth of one foot. Dam failures are not routine; two factors influence the potential severity of full or partial dam failure: (1) The amount of water impounded, and (2) the density, type, and value of development downstream. In 2007, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers declared that the Herbert Hoover Dike was on the top of the list of nationwide dams in need of repair. Since then, the Corps has funded more work on the Herbert Hoover Dike than for any other dam construction project in the nation. 26 The rehabilitation project received $56 million in 2008, $74 million in 2009, $124 million in 2010, and $107.8 million in The Herbert Hoover Dike is one of many dams in Florida, each of which are listed in the National Inventory of Dams and are assigned a high, significant, or low hazard classification based on potential for loss of life and damage to property if the dam fails. 28 Classifications are updated based on development and changing demographics upstream and downstream. The description for each of the different hazard classifications is provided below tsheets/hhd_fs_rehab_spring2012.pdf 28 orts/hhd_consensusreport_ pdf State of Florida Enhanced Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 3.39

40 Dam hazard is a term indicating the potential hazard to the downstream area resulting from failure or operational errors of the dam or facilities. The level of risk associated with dams is classified into three categories based on definitions from the US Army Corps of Engineers: Low: A dam where failure or operational error results in no probable loss of human life and low economic and/or environmental loss. Losses are principally limited to the owner s property. Significant: A dam where failure or operational error results in no probable loss of human life but can cause economic loss, environmental damage, disruption of lifeline facilities, or affect other concerns. These dams are often located in predominantly rural or agricultural areas but could be located in areas with more dense populations and significant infrastructure. High: A dam where failure or operational error will probably cause loss of human life. A number of outside forces can cause dam failure, including prolonged periods of rain or flooding, landslides into reservoirs, failure of dams upstream, high winds, and earthquakes. Failure due to natural events such as earthquakes or tornadoes is significant because there is little to no advance warning. It is important to note that dam failures can result from natural events, human-caused events, or a combination of the two. Improper design and maintenance, inadequate spillway capacity, or internal erosion or piping within a dam may also cause failure. National statistics show that overtopping of dams due to inadequate spillway design, debris blockage of spillways, or settlement of the dam crest account for 34 percent of all dam failures. 29 Foundation defects, including settlement and slope instability, account for 30 percent of all failures. Piping and seepage cause 20 percent of national dam failures. This includes internal erosion caused by seepage, seepage and erosion along hydraulic structures, leakage through animal burrows, and cracks in the dam. The remaining 16 percent of failures are caused by other means, including the failure of conduits and valves. 30 Though Florida has never independently executed an inventory of dams, a national database has been developed using numerous resources to provide dam statistics. The most recent statistics from the Florida Dam Safety Program identified 882 state-regulated dams. 31 Approximately 402, or 46 percent, of Florida dams officially counted are either high hazard (will cause at least one life lost if failure were to occur) or significant hazard (may cause loss of life if failure were to occur) dams. It was determined that the counties, river systems, and the immediate areas around these dams are the zones with the highest vulnerability to flooding resulting from dam failure. Overall dam failure is a low priority with respect to flooding since the risks of coastal and inland flooding are much higher. Polk County has the largest number of dams by far. Other high vulnerability jurisdictions include Palm Beach County, Osceola County, Glades County, and Okeechobee County State of Florida Enhanced Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 3.40

41 Given the data classification for the dam data from U.S. Geological Survey (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers) database, 32 specific detail has been removed from this plan. In its place, Figure 3.4 indicates which counties have high or significant hazard dams. More detailed information can be requested from the State of Florida. Sea Level Rise Figure 3.4 Counties with High or Significant Hazard Dams 33 Florida is vulnerable to sea level rise given its extensive shoreline and low elevation. Should sea levels rise, a number of consequences including the salination of fresh water sources, land loss, and increases in storms and flooding, could be observed. Rising sea level affects the salinity of both surface water and ground water through salt water intrusion. Shallow coastal aquifers such as those in Florida are at risk via this salt water intrusion process. The freshwater Everglades currently recharges Florida s Biscayne aquifer, the primary water supply to the Florida Keys. As rising water levels submerge low-lying portions of the Everglades, portions of the aquifer would become saline. 32 National Inventory of Dams, Florida dam inventory, National Inventory of Dams, Florida dam inventory, State of Florida Enhanced Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 3.41

42 As sea levels rise, water inundates and erodes coastal wetland ecosystems such as mangroves and salt marshes. Higher water levels wash away wetlands and flood previously dry land. These coastal wetland ecosystems are crucial to absorbing the impact of tropical storms and provide breeding ground for a significant proportion of sea life. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has reported that by 2080, sea level rise could convert as much as 33 percent of the world s coastal wetlands to open water. Sea level rise increases the vulnerability of coastal areas to flooding during storms. During a tropical storm or hurricane storm surge builds up on top of a higher base of water resulting in damages that are more significant. Given that storm surge from a hurricane or nor easter builds on top of a higher base of water, a Report to Congress by FEMA (1991) estimated that existing development in the U.S. Coastal Zone would experience a percent increase in annual damages for a 1-foot rise in sea level, and a percent increase for a 3- foot rise. Additionally, shore erosion increases storm vulnerability by removing the dunes and beaches that otherwise provide a buffer between coastal property and storm waves and surge. Lastly, sea level rise can result in an increase in coastal flooding from rainstorms because low areas drain more slowly as sea levels rise. There exists interplay between vertical crustal motion and global seal level rise. However, no comprehensive analysis of vertical crustal motion has been done in Florida. A 2009 Nature Conservancy evaluation of existing climate change data identified both a best- and worst-case scenario for the Florida Keys. In the best-case scenario, the study suggested that the sea would rise 7 inches by 2100 and subsume $11 billion worth of property value. The worst-case scenario predicted a 55-inch sea rise by 2100, which would include 5,950 acres of land lost on Big Pine Key alone and $35.1 billion in overall property value lost. U.S. Geological Survey Flood Monitoring The U.S. Geological Survey considers flooding in Florida to be a high probability, and has established a system of monitoring stations to retrieve data about stream flow conditions. This system works in real time for flood warnings and for short-term trends. The system is accessible at the following website: FEMA Q3 Floodplain Data A geographic assessment of the inland flooding hazard can be obtained using the FEMA Q3 digital floodplain data. This data is available for vulnerable counties in the state and it outlines the areas in the 100- year and the 500- year floodplains, with 1 percent annual probability and 0.2 percent probability of floods, respectively. State of Florida Enhanced Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 3.42

43 Floodplain data for the 2013 risk assessment includes updated Q3 data from April The data is reflected in Figure 3.5. Figure 3.5 Areas at Risk for Flooding 34 II. Geographic Areas Affected by Floods The State of Florida is repeatedly impacted by flooding; 23 of 64 FEMA-declared disasters in Florida involved a flooding component. 35 Many of the remaining declarations were tropical storms and hurricanes that also included significant amounts of water, storm surge, and rain. The entire State of Florida is particularly susceptible to flooding due to the large amounts of coastline, significant drainage systems, and the relatively low elevations. Many other factors contribute to flooding in Florida and therefore help to define the geographic area impacted by flooding. Areas along waterways, including lakes, rivers, streams and wetlands, are particularly susceptible to flooding due to heavy storms and rain or storm surge. 34 Map developed using FEMA Q3 digital floodplain data for 2013 plan update State of Florida Enhanced Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 3.43

44 III. Historical Occurrences of Floods The worst flooding to date in Florida took place in 2000 as a result of Tropical Storm Leslie. On October 2 and 3, 2000, a broad area of low pressure in the Gulf of Mexico off the southwest Florida coast moved northeast across central Florida and eventually became subtropical depression number one, then Tropical Storm Leslie, as it moved off of the northeast Florida coast. Flood damage was particularly severe in the communities of Sweetwater, West Miami, Hialeah, Opa-Locka, and Pembroke Park. An estimated 93,000 houses and approximately 214,000 persons were isolated by floodwaters. Power was cut to 13,000 people. Some flood waters lingered for over a week. There were three indirect deaths, including two men who drove vehicles into canals and one man who fell from a roof while repairing a leak. Total property damage and crop damage estimates were $450 million and $500 million, respectively. Other recent noteworthy flood-related events include Tropical Storm Fay in August 2008, which caused more than $150 million worth of property damage and more than $25 million worth of agricultural damage. In May 2009, five successive days of rain resulted in substantial flooding and standing water in Volusia County. Property damage totals were in excess of $68 million, and one fatality was indirectly related to the event. Spring and summer 2012 have brought several significant flooding incidents to Florida. In May 2012, rain associated Tropical Storm Beryl caused extensive street flooding, stranding drivers across the Miami-metropolitan area. Miami International Airport recorded a one-day rainfall total of 9.7 inches. 36 More than 20 inches of rain fell in Escambia County and across the Florida Panhandle in early June 2012, causing extensive flooding. Consequences included the inundation of the Escambia County Jail with approximately 6 feet of water and flooding of many homes requiring emergency sheltering of 112 individuals. 37 Later in June 2012, Tropical Storm Debby produced significant flooding across large portions of Florida including inches of rainfall in 24 hours across the Panhandle. 38 Preliminary damage from Debby was estimated to be at least $17 million and could be greater NWS Tallahassee Local Storm Reports. National Weather Service in Tallahassee, Florida. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. June 26, Wells, C. Disaster-relief Coming for Tropical Storm Debby Damage. July 9, Herald-Tribune. State of Florida Enhanced Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 3.44

45 Table 3.8 describes other significant flooding occurrences and their impacts. Date Table 3.8 Other Significant Flooding Occurrences 40 Property Agricultural Other Impacts or Event Damage Damage Damages of Note October 1999 Hurricane Irene $205 million $290 million October 2000 September 2001 Tropical Storm Leslie Tropical Storm Gabrielle March 2003 Rain/Flooding $1.0 million $450 million $500 million $26 million Range of 6 9 rainfall Range of 3 16 rainfall June 2003 Rain/Flooding $11 million 100 homes destroyed June 2003 Dam Failure 600 homes threatened September 2004 Rain/Flooding $5 million Lake Gage crested at 10.1 feet April 2005 Flash Floods $5 million 150 homes damaged February 2006 Flash Floods $2 million August 2008 Tropical Storm Fay $150 million $25 million Range of 4 11 of rain in 5 hours May 2009 Rain/Flooding $68 million 1 death July 2009 Flood $4 million 20 square blocks flooded December 2009 Flood $500, of rain recorded May 2012 Tropical Storm Beryl June 2012 Rain/Flooding $20 million June 2012 Tropical Storm Debby 9.7 of rain at Miami International Airport 23 of rain in Escambia County + $17 million Range of 5 20 of rain &endDate_mm=12&endDate_dd=31&endDate_yyyy=2011&county=ALL&eventType=Coastal+Flood&statef ips=12%2cflorida State of Florida Enhanced Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 3.45

46 National Climatic Data Center Based on data collected by the National Climatic Data Center (NCDC), there were 1,014 flooding events in Florida between January 1993 and April Total property damages were estimated at $1.5 billion with an additional $972 million in crop-related damages. 41 Table 3.9 provides statistical data on flooding events that have occurred in Florida from 2008 through The statistics give an overview of how frequently each event occurs, as well as the dollar value of damages caused by each type of flood event.. Table 3.9 Flood Events in the State by Type ( ) 42 Type of Event Number of Property Deaths Injuries Events Damage Crop Damage Coastal Flood $46,320,000 $0 Flash Flood $116,962,000 $0 Flood $152,737,000 $25,012,000 Total $316,019,000 $25,012,000 Note: Multiple reports that occurred on the same day were counted as one event. Many of Florida s coastal counties have large population concentrations that are vulnerable to the effects of coastal flooding. Miami-Dade County, for example, has 537,320 persons requiring evacuation in the event of a Category 3 hurricane. Other examples are Broward County with 155,705; Palm Beach with 271,993; Hillsborough with 295,636; Pinellas with 474,504; and Lee with 378,593. This information is current as of the 2010 plan update. There were not additional details available to update these numbers for the 2013 plan. Using the 2010 census statistics for these counties, growth rates can be applied to the evacuation numbers above. Table 3.10 shows the comparisons of the 2000 census with the 2010 census and the related growth rates. Table and 2010 Census Growth Rate Comparison County Percent Growth Miami-Dade 2,496,435 2,253, Broward 1,748,066 1,623, Palm Beach 1,320,134 1,131, Hillsborough 1,229, , Pinellas 916, , Duval 864, , Ibid &endDate_mm=12&endDate_dd=31&endDate_yyyy=2011&county=ALL&eventType=Coastal+Flood&statef ips=12%2cflorida State of Florida Enhanced Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 3.46

47 As the urban encroachment continues and the population grows, mitigation plans are an integral part of the overall emergency planning, especially as the sprawl stays on or near the coast. The following statistics show the importance of flooding to the state s mitigation planning effort: More than 45 percent of the state s population resides in 6 coastal counties: Miami- Dade, Broward, Palm Beach, Hillsborough, Pinellas, and Duval. About 3.95 million people reside in areas that are subject to coastal flooding. 43 As of January 2013, approximately 2.1 million of the 2.6 million National Flood Insurance Program policies in the nation are in Florida. 44 IV. National Flood Insurance Program and Repetitive Loss Properties One of the consequences of flooding is repetitive loss. A repetitive loss property is one for which two or more losses of at least $1,000 each have been paid by the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) over a rolling 10-year period. The facts below show the overall importance of the NFIP to the state and the level of flooding concern. These statistics are current as of January 16, Table 3.11 highlights the five states with the highest number of flood policies in force and Table 3.12 goes into greater detail on Florida s polices. Table 3.11 Flood Policies in Force Top 5 States 45 Top Five States Flood Policies in Force 1. Florida 2,059, Texas 656, Louisiana 493, California 263, New Jersey 234,717 Table 3.12 Florida Flood Policies 46 The total amount of premium for policies in Florida $1,021,351,301 The total coverage for all policies within the state $476,463,660,400 The average coverage of a Florida policy $219,180 The total number of claims reported within the state for all claims 238,547 The total amount paid on claims within the state since 1978 $3,693,593,921 47, (Last updated January 16, 2013) 46 (Last updated January 16, 2013) 47 (July 31, 2009) 48 State of Florida Enhanced Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 3.47

48 NFIP s Community Rating System (CRS) is a voluntary incentive program that recognizes and encourages community floodplain management activities that exceed the minimum NFIP requirements. Ninety-seven percent of communities in Florida participate in the NFIP. 49 For more information about the NFIP, please see Section 4: Goals and Capabilities. As a result of CRS, flood insurance premium rates are discounted to reflect the reduced flood risk resulting from the community actions meeting the three goals of the CRS: Reduce flood losses Facilitate accurate insurance rating Promote the awareness of flood insurance For the 2013 update, the state decided to highlight non-mitigated repetitive loss properties. Given the focus of the hazard mitigation plan on risks and vulnerabilities, this data was more pertinent to characterizing the state. The following data is based on the NFIP Repetitive Loss Master File. 50 As of January 16, 2013, Florida had 2,059,797 NFIP policies. Total premiums on that date equal an annual amount of $1,021,351,301. These policies cover more than $476 billion in property. Florida has 13,518 non-mitigated repetitive loss properties (RLPs). Table 3.13 details the non-mitigated repetitive loss properties and their losses. County Table 3.13 Non-Mitigated Repetitive Loss Properties by County 51 Non- Mitigated RLP s Dollar Losses for Repetitive Loss County Non- Mitigated RLP s Dollar Losses for Repetitive Loss Alachua 5 $165, Lee 612 $30,066, Baker 6 $251, Leon 68 $3,265, Bay 387 $48,985, Levy 74 $3,818, Bradford 4 $107, Liberty 0 $0 Brevard 138 $8,058, Madison 8 $451, Broward 707 $34,153, Manatee 338 $12,395, Calhoun 11 $628, Marion 7 $313, Charlotte 117 $4,572, Martin 177 $14,412, Citrus 335 $19,894, Miami-Dade 2,205 $130,358, Clay 63 $2,780, Monroe 912 $60,628, Collier 47 $2,313, Nassau 14 $787, Colombia 16 $641, Okaloosa 600 $121,550, DeSoto 28 $1,485, Okeechobee 12 $383, Dixie 75 $3,033, Orange 17 $790, Duval 260 $18,943, Osceola 8 $133, Individual data protected by the 1974 Privacy Act. Date in the table represents the compiled information from the NFIP Repetitive Loss Master File, State of Florida Enhanced Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 3.48

49 County Non- Mitigated RLP s Dollar Losses for Repetitive Loss County Non- Mitigated RLP s Dollar Losses for Repetitive Loss Escambia 1,181 $222,689, Palm Beach 238 $13,889, Flagler 21 $908, Pasco 600 $28,333, Franklin 104 $4,934, Pinellas 1,264 $61,801, Gadsden 2 $42, Polk 31 $1,440, Gilchrist 33 $822, Putnam 20 $669, Glades 1 $10, Santa Rosa 690 $88,273, Gulf 55 $2,897, Sarasota 289 $13,802, Hamilton 16 $602, Seminole 31 $1,557, Hardee 6 $228, St. Johns 56 $2,226, Hendry 0 $0 St. Lucie 256 $27,846, Hernando 120 $5,546, Sumter 2 $55, Highlands 6 $200, Suwannee 26 $1,208, Hillsborough 371 $19,459, Taylor 25 $995, Holmes 22 $904, Union 1 $73, Indian River 179 $16,853, Volusia 188 $10,159, Jackson 2 $29, Wakulla 122 $7,302, Jefferson 0 $0 Walton 265 $26,958, Lafayette 30 $1,619, Washington 8 $221, Lake 6 $223, Statewide Totals 15,518 $1,090,159, V. Probability of Future Flooding Events The SHMPAT has considered the probability of flooding in previous revisions. Multiple factors have been considered for this analysis. Flooding will continue to occur throughout the state on an annual basis, although it is the goal of the SHMPAT and LMS working groups to reduce the effects of flooding through mitigation. Specific probability is difficult to gauge, however, 100-year and 500-year estimates help provide a baseline understanding. It is likely that Florida will continue to be impacted by flooding due to any number of causes annually. VI. Flood Impact Analysis Floods and flash flooding will negatively affect the State of Florida in a variety of ways: People, facilities, and infrastructure located within the floodplains in Florida are susceptible to flood impacts. Areas with poor drainage (e.g., fast growing municipalities that lack adequate storm drainage management) are more susceptible to the short-term effects of flash State of Florida Enhanced Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 3.49

50 flooding. Florida has experienced high levels of population growth; therefore, this will continue to be an issue until the infrastructure can handle rainfall and runoff. Injuries and deaths have resulted in the past from flooding events. Most cases involved automobile accidents during dangerous conditions. Florida is in the high-risk area for hurricanes and could expect to face a flooding event similar to the worst case scenario in Louisiana. The flooding situation created by Hurricane Katrina in 2005 showed the worst-case scenario resulting in long-term, significant flooding. The impacts included severe property damage, severe damage to cars and other equipment, water system contamination, wastewater treatment disruptions, civil unrest, and evacuation issues. Flooding, and particularly flash flooding, has caused traffic accidents and congestion that has resulted in short-term impacts on the transportation infrastructure. High dollar impact to uninsured property from floods. Most homeowner insurance policies do not cover floods and citizens do not always opt to purchase NFIP. Property damaged by a flooding event often results in a mold infestation that can require lengthy remediation and health issues. Responders are often put at risk during flood events as they respond to calls for assistance. Their risks can range from performing dangerous rescue missions for stranded citizens to sickness due to exposure to inclement weather. Most responders, however, are not at a great health and safety risk from flooding events. Flooding, as a localized event, does not pose a significant threat to the state s ability to maintain normal operations. However, during major flooding events, state resources directed by Florida Division of Emergency Management will be mobilized to assist in the response and recovery effort, and this can cause a re-prioritization of the short- and medium-term government agenda. This hazard could cause major disruptions to essential government services. Flooding is often the result of fast moving, severe storm systems and can include other hazards such as tornadoes, lightning, straight-line winds, and hail. The impact from these related hazards will compound the response and recovery issues related directly to flooding, as well as damages and injuries. VII LMS Integration The SHMPAT focused on producing a statewide vulnerability analysis based on estimates provided by the LMS plans. The 67 multi-jurisdictional LMS plans provided a solid baseline for the overall state vulnerability analysis. Risk assessment information from the LMS plans is current as of May 1, State of Florida Enhanced Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 3.50

51 Based on the LMS plans in the State of Florida, Figure 3.6 displays the jurisdictional rankings for the flood hazard. High-risk Jurisdictions 44 Medium-high risk Jurisdictions 11 Medium-risk Jurisdictions 10 Low-risk Jurisdictions 02 Figure 3.6 Flood Hazard Rankings by County State of Florida Enhanced Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 3.51

52 Based on the LMS plans in the State of Florida, Figure 3.7 displays the jurisdictional rankings for the Dam Failure hazard. Not all counties with dams have identified Dam Failure as one of their hazards. High-risk Jurisdictions 1 Medium-high risk Jurisdictions 2 Medium-risk Jurisdictions 3 Low-risk Jurisdictions 28 Figure 3.7 Dam Hazard Ranking by County VIII. Flooding Hazard Vulnerability Analysis by Jurisdiction Inland Flooding Vulnerability Analysis by Jurisdiction The following analysis has been updated for the 2013 plan update. The information in Table 3.14 is based on the 2010 U.S. Census population data. The individual tract and block data was built based on updates to those as part of the 2010 data. Centroids for each block were then overlaid with the inland flood zones layer for 100-year and 500-year floodplains, and State of Florida Enhanced Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 3.52

53 summarized to produce Table The total exposure potentially at risk from riverine flooding is over $668 billion (or over one third of the total building exposure). Table 3.14 Inland Flood Hazard, Population 52 County 100-Year 500-Year County 100-Year 500-Year Alachua 126,934 19,218 Lee 311, ,360 Baker 14,810 9,566 Leon 139,853 44,439 Bay 103,780 19,410 Levy 16,742 1,135 Bradford 23,809 1,978 Liberty 5, Brevard 236, ,030 Madison 13,442 1,020 Broward 1,468, ,404 Manatee 136, ,330 Calhoun 7, Marion 131,725 27,466 Charlotte 106,510 15,567 Martin 52, ,254 Citrus 50,959 25,466 Miami-Dade 1,872, ,492 Clay 109,479 46,881 Monroe 68,543 16,208 Collier 119, ,797 Nassau 43,534 24,256 Columbia 50,100 10,660 Okaloosa 59,713 6,519 DeSoto 16,018 5,341 Okeechobee 18,353 15,626 Dixie 13,459 3,124 Orange 463,837 65,157 Duval 325, ,806 Osceola 146,428 90,778 Escambia 86,253 40,056 Palm Beach 389,406 1,061,429 Flagler 27,996 21,982 Pasco 277, ,077 Franklin 9,070 4,371 Pinellas 398, ,183 Gadsden 32,666 5,521 Polk 293,364 7,949 Gilchrist 9,397 2,615 Putnam 40,742 13,708 Glades 9,870 4,942 Santa Rosa 49,898 21,511 Gulf 12,947 4,199 Sarasota 149, ,816 Hamilton 11,212 2,971 Seminole 198,802 66,952 Hardee 13,672 6,654 St. Johns 132, ,292 Hendry 24,588 6,216 St. Lucie 44,970 32,519 Hernando 101,575 45,133 Sumter 44,982 3,141 Highlands 25,801 12,081 Suwannee 26,140 6,698 Hillsborough 690,351 22,580 Taylor 19,067 6,072 Holmes 17,051 1,467 Union 11, Indian River 67,702 25,592 Volusia 183, ,786 Jackson 33,092 1,989 Wakulla 22,343 2,333 Jefferson 10,777 1,780 Walton 41,406 2,358 Lafayette 4,048 2,081 Washington 18, Lake 154,239 10, Results obtained via GIS analysis of aggregated data sources. State of Florida Enhanced Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 3.53

54 Coastal Flooding Vulnerability Analysis by Jurisdiction The following analysis was performed as a part of the update process for this revision. Figure 3.8 and Figure 3.9 were produced using coastal flood depth grids. Coastal flooding can be difficult to predict, and the following data reflects the FEMA Region IV Coastal Flood Atlas. Flooding may be worse from a direct hit by a lesser category hurricane, in comparison to a glancing hit by a larger category storm. Coastal flooding is reflective of the potential impacts by a tropical storm or cyclone. Given the end effect of flooding, this section resides in the Flooding Section, rather than the Tropical Cycle Section. Category 2 and Category 5 hurricanes were used as they reflect both the low to medium impact, and a high impact. Using these two categories provides a range of potential damages based on intensity and projected impacts. Figure 3.8 Coastal Flood Depth from a Category 2 Hurricane Map was produced using 2010 census block populations with coastal flood depth grids. State of Florida Enhanced Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 3.54

55 Figure 3.9 Coastal Flood Depth from a Category 5 Hurricane 54 Tables showing the number and value of key community facilities vulnerable to flooding associated with Category 2 and 5 hurricanes by county and flooding depth can be found in Appendix C: Risk Assessment Tables. Table 3.15 and Table 3.16 were produced by overlaying census block populations with the coastal flood depth grids. The information was then summarized according to the populations in each depth range. The flood depth grids came from the FEMA Coastal Flood Atlas and were combined with the recent 2010 Census information. Table 3.15 Population in Coastal Flood Hazard, Category 2 55 County 1 3 ft. 4 6 ft ft ft ft ft. Bay 5,951 3,866 1,858 Brevard 26,793 12,384 1,387 Broward 623,004 57,162 Charlotte 52,168 52,126 61,784 8,170 Citrus 7,819 10,787 21,051 6,294 6,856 2, Map was produced using 2010 census block populations with coastal flood depth grids. 55 Results obtained via GIS analysis of aggregated data sources. State of Florida Enhanced Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 3.55

56 County 1 3 ft. 4 6 ft ft ft ft ft. Collier 110,499 81,408 97,685 38,395 4,621 Dixie Duval 23,349 12,531 4,221 1,210 Escambia 12,334 12,164 6,330 Flagler 11,652 10,757 5,318 Franklin 1,737 1,920 1, Gulf 1, Hernando 1, ,690 2,680 2,677 Hillsborough 70,537 96,053 65,853 21,640 Indian River 10,209 5,853 Lee 116, , ,756 98,507 9,449 Levy 1,644 2,281 2,478 1, Manatee 25,422 29,413 22, Martin 15,551 11, Miami-Dade 779, ,249 26, Monroe 34,492 50,502 29, Nassau 9,367 9,565 9, Okaloosa 6,408 6,994 3,689 Palm Beach 64,181 45,309 Pasco 15,184 32,423 25,922 19,561 5,508 Pinellas 83, , ,759 3,330 Santa Rosa 6,956 8,342 5, Sarasota 13,237 23,948 6,673 - St. Johns 35,686 28,175 24,523 2,051 St. Lucie 10,448 9,145 Taylor Volusia 35,761 16,052 3,670 Wakulla 4,453 3,879 4,194 2,160 1, Walton 6,781 3,507 2,455 State of Florida Enhanced Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 3.56

57 Table 3.16 Population in Coastal Flood Hazard, Category 5 56 County ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. Bay 1,026 1,030 1, Brevard 1, ,735 1, Broward 8,248 3, Charlotte ,461 2,441 2,768 1, Citrus Collier ,300 1,548 2,143 1, Dixie Duval 1,755 1,995 1,892 2,054 1, Escambia Flagler Franklin Gilchrist 1 Gulf Hernando Hillsborough 1,035 1,700 1,926 1,451 1,793 2,316 1, Indian River Jefferson Lee 1,519 1,954 4,602 4,342 3,305 4,784 3, Levy Liberty 1 Manatee 1,089 1,307 1,218 1, Marion 1 1 Martin 1 Miami-Dade 16,38 8 8,689 5,987 2, Monroe ,834 1, Results obtained via GIS analysis of aggregated data sources. State of Florida Enhanced Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 3.57

58 County ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. Nassau Okaloosa Palm Beach 1,843 1, Pasco , Pinellas 1,229 2,880 4,034 2,977 3,179 3, Putnam 1 Santa Rosa Sarasota 2,486 2,385 1, Seminole 1 St. Johns , St. Lucie Taylor Volusia 1,051 1,993 1, ft ft ft. State of Florida Enhanced Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 3.58

59 IX. Assessing Vulnerability of State Facilities The following section provides a detailed description of the vulnerability of state facilities to flooding. For this 2013 analysis, flooding was separated into two distinct categories and builds upon past plan updates: Inland Flooding Coastal Flooding Inland Flooding Vulnerability Analysis for State Facilities The State of Florida is extremely vulnerable to flooding riverine and coastal placing billions of dollars in property at risk. The Department of Environmental Protection owns more at-risk facilities vulnerable to flooding (riverine and coastal) than any other state agency. The SHMPAT reviewed the FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Maps and the existing Q3 data and, together with flood experts from the Division of Emergency Management, analyzed the vulnerabilities in 20-, 50-, 100-, and 200-year flood zones. To complete this analysis the SHMPAT used the state facility database to calculate the total amounts of the state s vulnerability both in value and total facilities by county. The tables below show the values and facility number estimate totals for inland and coastal flooding. Some counties only have information for facilities in the 100-year floodplain. Counties in the table below that have only one row have no facilities in the 500-year floodplain. After the analysis, the risk assessment SHMPAT sub-group found that the county with the most vulnerability in terms of total structures for 100-year floodplain is Miami-Dade County with 1,048 structures. Palm Beach County has the most structures in the 500-year floodplain with 612. For values, Broward County has $5.085 billion at risk within the 100-year floodplain and Miami-Dade has $5.710 billion within the 500-year floodplain. Figure 3.10 shows the range of facility values within 100-year and 500-year inland floodplains. A detailed breakdown of facilities and values, by county, can be found in Appendix C: Risk Assessment Tables. State of Florida Enhanced Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 3.59

60 Figure 3.10 Facility Values within 100-Year and 500-Year Inland Floodplains 57 Coastal Flooding Vulnerability Analysis for State Facilities For this section, the SHMPAT had to identify the specific counties within the state that were perceived to be vulnerable to the effects of coastal flooding and their individual levels of vulnerability. Using the state facility database provided by DFS, the SHMPAT identified which facilities lay within coastal flood depth zones. Summarizing the facilities by total counts and insured values within the zones provided estimates of dollar vulnerability by county. This approach allowed the SHMPAT to identify an overall view of the state s vulnerability to this hazard by county. Specific totals of the number of state facilities and their vulnerability within each county can be found in the tables below. The risk assessment SHMPAT sub-group chose to evaluate two categories of hurricanes for potential state facilities at risk: Category 2 and 5. The vulnerability analysis and determining the exposure value for coastal flooding was based on the Sea, Lake and Overland Surge from 57 Map based on data obtained from Hazus-MH 2.1 modeling and analysis. State of Florida Enhanced Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 3.60

61 Hurricanes (SLOSH) maps. Counties not at risk to storm surge have been omitted from the analysis. Table 3.17 and Table 3.18 summarize all facility types that could be affected by some level of surge, and their combined value for the different strength hurricanes. A detailed breakdown by county, facility type, value, and level of storm surge is available in Appendix C: Risk Assessment Tables. Table 3.17 Summary of Facilities in Storm Surge Areas in a Category 2 Hurricane 58 County Total Total Value Total Total Value County Facilities ($Millions) Facilities ($Millions) Bay Manatee Brevard Martin Broward Miami-Dade Charlotte Monroe Citrus Nassau Collier Okaloosa Dixie Palm Beach Duval Pasco Escambia Pinellas Flagler Saint Johns Franklin Saint Lucie Gulf Santa Rosa Hernando Sarasota Hillsborough Taylor Indian River Volusia Jefferson Wakulla Lee Walton Levy Table 3.18 Summary of Facilities in Storm Surge Areas in a Category 5 Hurricane 59 County Total Total Value Total Total Value County Facilities ($Millions) Facilities ($Millions) Bay Levy Brevard Manatee Broward Miami-Dade Charlotte Monroe Citrus Nassau Collier Okaloosa Dixie Palm Beach Duval Pasco Escambia Pinellas Data obtained from Hazus-MH 2.1 modeling and analysis. 59 Data obtained from Hazus-MH 2.1 modeling and analysis. State of Florida Enhanced Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 3.61

62 County Total Total Value Total Total Value County Facilities ($Millions) Facilities ($Millions) Flagler Santa Rosa Franklin Sarasota Gulf St. Johns Hernando St. Lucie Hillsborough Taylor Indian River Volusia Jefferson Wakulla Lee Walton Figure 3.11 presents an illustration of the values of facilities within each county that are vulnerable to storm surge from a Category 2 hurricane. Figure 3.11 Values of Facilities Vulnerable to Storm Surge in a Category 2 Hurricane State of Florida Enhanced Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 3.62

63 Figure 3.12 presents an illustration of the values of facilities within the county that are vulnerable to storm surge from a Category 5 hurricane. Figure 3.12 Values of Facilities Vulnerable to Storm Surge in a Category 5 Hurricane X. Estimating Potential Losses by Jurisdiction The SHMPAT conducted loss estimation on flooding during the 2013 plan update and revision process, the estimation was enhanced and expanded from the 2010 plan. Flood Loss Estimation Using DFIRM and updated flood data, along with the modeling approach as described herein, losses were estimated using return period events of 100 years and 500 years. With this approach, annualized losses were calculated by accounting for the losses from different return period events and their respective annual probabilities of occurrence (e.g., the annual probability of observing a 100-year flood is 1 percent). State of Florida Enhanced Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 3.63

64 Table 3.19 provides annualized loss estimates of residential buildings, commercial buildings, medical buildings, educational buildings, and governmental buildings per parcel data from coastal and riverine flooding. County Table 3.19 Estimated Flooding Structures Loss Summary 60 Total Value of Structures ($Millions) Estimated Annualized Loss ($Thousands) County Total Value of Structures ($Millions) Estimated Annualized Loss ($Thousands) Alachua 359, Lafayette 104, Baker 75,662 9 Lake 1,955, Bay 4,991, Lee 48,768,144 7,369 Bradford 305, Leon 1,735, Brevard 9,850,376 1,257 Levy 409, Broward 118,862,468 21,414 Liberty 39,541 3 Calhoun 129, Madison 151, Charlotte 7,714,062 1,444 Manatee 8,527,956 1,195 Citrus 3,543, Marion 1,945, Clay 2,118, Martin 9,508, Collier 26,125,980 2,484 Miami-Dade 126,721,149 20,460 Columbia 528, Monroe 7,382,879 1,328 Desoto 252, Nassau 2,018, Dixie 316, Okaloosa 3,011, Duval 8,979,606 1,359 Okeechobee 310, Escambia 3,447, Orange 4,663, Flagler 2,481, Osceola 8,534 1 Franklin 852, Palm Beach 105,096,212 4,607 Gadsden 129, Pasco 16,892,868 2,578 Gilchrist 169, Pinellas 36,327,523 5,807 Glades 218, Polk 4,123, Gulf 712, Putnam 948, Hamilton 122, Santa Rosa 2,090, Hardee 120,222 9 Sarasota 15,443,878 1,181 Hendry 984, Seminole 1,688, Hernando 1,589, St. Johns 33,892,040 5,294 Highlands St. Lucie 5,510, Hillsborough 26,024,013 4,873 Sumter 2,109 0 Holmes 223, Suwannee 256, Indian River 5,879, Union 34,229 2 Jackson 476, Wakulla 584, Jefferson 124, Washington 357, Results obtained via GIS analysis of aggregated data sources. State of Florida Enhanced Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 3.64

65 National Climatic Data Center Flooding Loss Estimation Based on data collected by the NCDC, there were 1,014 flooding events in Florida between January 1993 and April Total property damages were estimated at $1.5 billion with an additional $972 million in crop-related damages. 61 The table below provides statistical data on flooding events that have occurred in Florida from 1993 through April The statistics give an overview of how frequently each event occurs, as well as the dollar value of damages caused by each type of flood event. Property damage caused by flooding events costs an average of $168 million per year, and damage to crops average an additional $104 million per year. Data from the National Climatic Data Center details the historical flooding in the state. Table 3.20 shows a breakdown of the types of floods and associated annualized losses that have occurred in Florida since Table 3.20 Flood Events in the State by Type ( ) 62 Type of Flood NCDC Average Annualized Annualized Reports per Year Property Loss Crop Loss Coastal Flood 10 2 $9,264,000 $0 Flash Flood $23,392,400 $0 Flood $30,547,400 $5,002,400 Total $63,203,800 $5,002,400 Note: Multiple reports that occurred on the same day were counted as one event XI. Estimating Potential Losses of State Facilities The SHMPAT conducted loss estimations on flooding in 2004 during the original plan development process. During the 2013 plan update and revision process, this analysis was updated. The following section provides a detailed description of the estimates of potential losses to state facilities from flooding. The State of Florida is extremely vulnerable to flooding riverine and coastal placing billions of dollars in property at risk. Over $25 billion in state-owned facilities are at risk for damage due to flooding National Climatic Data Center (NCDC) Storm Events database, State of Florida Enhanced Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 3.65

66 Inland Flooding Loss Estimation for State Facilities Table 3.21 shows the total exposure and estimated losses from inland (riverine) flooding of state-owned facilities by agency, for all counties that have facilities within 100-year and 500- year inland floodplains. County Table 3.21 Inland Flooding Loss Estimation for State Facilities 63 Facilities In Annualized Facilities In Floodplains Losses County Floodplains ($Millions) ($Thousands) ($Millions) Annualized Losses ($Thousands) Alachua Lee Baker Leon Bay Levy Bradford Liberty Brevard Madison Broward 5, ,038 Manatee Calhoun Marion Charlotte Martin Citrus Miami-Dade 6, ,000 Clay Monroe 1, Collier Nassau Columbia Okaloosa Desoto Okeechobee Dixie Orange Duval Osceola Escambia Palm Beach 4, Flagler Pasco Franklin Pinellas Gadsden Polk Gilchrist Putnam Glades Santa Rosa Gulf Sarasota Hamilton Seminole Hardee St. Johns Hendry St. Lucie Hernando Sumter Highlands Suwannee Hillsborough Taylor Holmes Union Indian River Volusia Jackson Wakulla Results obtained via GIS analysis of aggregated data sources. State of Florida Enhanced Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 3.66

67 County Facilities In Floodplains ($Millions) Annualized Losses ($Thousands) County Facilities In Floodplains ($Millions) Annualized Losses ($Thousands) Jefferson Walton Lafayette Washington Lake Coastal Flooding Loss Estimation for State Facilities The State of Florida continues to be extremely vulnerable to coastal flooding. Over $22 billion in state-owned facilities are at risk for damage due to coastal flooding. Table 3.22 shows the total exposure and estimated losses from coastal flooding to state-owned facilities. County Table 3.22 Coastal Flooding Loss Estimation for State Facilities 64 Total Value Annualized Total Value of Facilities Losses County of Facilities ($Millions) ($Thousands) ($Millions) Annualized Losses ($Thousands) Bay Manatee Brevard Martin Broward 5, Miami-Dade 11, Charlotte Monroe Citrus Nassau Collier 1, Okaloosa Dixie Palm Beach 1, Duval 1, Pasco Escambia Pinellas 1, Flagler Santa Rosa Franklin Sarasota Gulf St. Johns Hernando St. Lucie Hillsborough 1, Taylor Indian River Volusia Jefferson Wakulla Lee 3, Walton Levy Note that values for losses in this table are extremely low. All annualized losses are under $1,000. The NCDC storm events database did not include event reports for coastal flooding for Hurricane Erin in 1995, and the NCDC storm events data for coastal flooding begins in 1993, which postdates the occurrence of Hurricane Andrew in The lack of comprehensive loss data for these major hurricanes, Category 2 and Category 5 storms respectively, skews the annualized loss amounts to low values. 64 Results obtained via GIS analysis of aggregated data sources. State of Florida Enhanced Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 3.67

68 XII. Public Facilities Flood Mitigation Initiative As of October 1, 2014 new information regarding the vulnerability of state facilities has been added to Appendix R of this plan. The Public Facilities Flood Mitigation Initiative used data from the new Florida State Owned Lands and Records Information System (FL-SOLARIS) created by the Department of Environmental Protection and Department of Management Services. Moreover, information developed through this initiative will facilitate site-specific risk assessments for existing state facilities as well as assist in the process of choosing locations for future facilities. Information on this initiative can be found in Appendix R as well as online at Tropical Cyclones Profile I. Tropical Cyclone Description and Background Information In general terms, a hurricane is a cyclone. A cyclone is any closed circulation developing around a low-pressure center in which the wind rotates counterclockwise in the Northern Hemisphere (or clockwise in the Southern Hemisphere) and whose diameter averages 10 to 30 miles across. A tropical cyclone refers to any such circulation that develops over tropical waters. They act as a safety-value that limits the build-up of heat and energy in tropical regions by maintaining the atmospheric heat and moisture balance between the tropics and the pole ward latitudes. As a developing center moves over warm water, pressure drops (measured in millibars or inches of Mercury) in the center of the storm. As the pressure drops, the system becomes better organized and the winds begin to rotate around the low pressure, pulling the warm and moist ocean air. It is this cycle that causes the wind (and rain) associated with a tropical cyclone. If all of the conditions are right (warm ocean water and favorable high altitude winds), the system could build to a point where it has winds in excess of 155 miles per hour and could become catastrophic if it makes landfall in populated areas. The following are descriptions of the three general levels of development for tropical cyclones: Tropical depression: The formative stages of a tropical cyclone in which the maximum sustained (1-min mean) surface wind is < 38 mph. Tropical storm: A warm core tropical cyclone in which the maximum sustained surface wind (1-min mean) ranges from mph. Hurricane: A warm core tropical cyclone in which the maximum sustained surface wind (1-min mean) is at least 74 mph. Table 3.23 displays the Saffir-Simpson scale that is used to define and describe the intensity of hurricanes. State of Florida Enhanced Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 3.68

69 Table 3.23 Saffir- Simpson Hurricane Wind Scale 65 Category Millibars Inches of Mercury Winds (MPH) 1 > < 920 < > 157 Storm Surge Storm surge is perhaps the most dangerous aspect of a hurricane. It is a phenomenon that occurs when the winds and forward motion associated with a hurricane pile water up in front, as it moves toward shore. Storm surge heights, wind speed, fetch length, pressure and associated waves, are dependent upon the configuration of the continental shelf (narrow or wide) and the depth of the ocean bottom (bathymetry). These as well as other factors can affect storm surge height and wave height. A narrow shelf, or one that drops steeply from the shoreline and subsequently produces deep water in close proximity to the shoreline, tends to produce a lower surge but higher and more powerful storm waves. This is the situation along most of the Atlantic Ocean side of the state. However, the Gulf Coast of Florida has a long, gently sloping shelf and shallow water depths, and can expect a higher surge but smaller waves (up to 38 feet in the Apalachee Bay area of Florida). South Miami-Dade County is somewhat of an exception to these general rules due to Biscayne Bay (wide shelf and shallow depth). In this instance, a hurricane has a larger area to pile up water in advance of its landfall. Nowhere is the threat of storm surge more prevalent than in the Apalachee Bay Region. The shallow depths of the Big Bend region of the state extend out into the Gulf of Mexico, creating a naturally enclosed pocket. The National Hurricane Center forecasts storm surge using the SLOSH model, which stands for sea, lake, and overland surges from hurricanes. The model is accurate to within 20 percent. The inputs include the central pressure of a tropical cyclone, storm size, the forward motion, its track, and maximum sustained winds. Local topography, bay and river orientation, depth of the sea bottom, astronomical tides, as well as other physical features are taken into account in a predefined grid referred to as a SLOSH basin. Overlapping basins are defined for the southern and eastern coastlines of the continental U.S. The final output from the SLOSH model run will display the maximum envelope of water, or MEOW, that occurred at each location. To allow for track or forecast uncertainties, usually several model runs with varying input parameters are generated to create a map of MOMs, or maximum of maximums. For hurricane evacuation studies, a family of storms with representative tracks for the region with varying intensity, eye diameter, and speed are modeled 65 State of Florida Enhanced Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 3.69

70 to produce worst-case water heights for any tropical cyclone occurrence. The results of these studies are typically generated from several thousand SLOSH runs. These studies have been completed by U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for several coastal states and are available on their Hurricane Evacuation Studies (HES) website. 66 The studies include coastal county maps and frequently include analyses for riverine flooding for inland county areas. The State of Florida recently completed an enhanced Regional [Hurricane] Evacuation Study as part of a large-scale mitigation project involving light detection and ranging (LIDAR) data. LIDAR data was incorporated into the SLOSH basin data and was used to subtract the land elevation from the storm surge height to develop the storm tide limits. The resulting data was used to run new SLOSH models. The result of this storm surge hazard analysis is graphically portrayed in the Storm Tide Atlas, which illustrates the storm tide limits based on the maximum storm surge for land falling categories 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5. More information and potential impacts due to storm surge can be found in Section 3.3.1: Flood Hazard Profile. Tornadoes Tornadoes are a significant threat during severe storms and hurricanes and have been associated with the majority of tropical cyclones in Florida. Tornadoes tend to develop on the leading northwest edge (or the dirty side ) of hurricanes. The great majority of tornadoes that occur with hurricanes are of a weaker variety from those that occur in the Midwest. In recent years, much of the wind damage in hurricanes attributed to tornadoes has, in reality, been the result of down bursts. II. Geographic Areas Affected by Tropical Cyclones The entire State of Florida is subject to the effects of a hurricane, but some areas are much more vulnerable than others. This is due to its large areas of coastal shorelines on the Atlantic and Gulf Coast. The average diameter of hurricane force winds is easily 100 miles, and tropical storm force winds extend out miles; 67 while at the same time no point within Florida is more than 70 miles from the Atlantic Ocean/Gulf of Mexico. Maps throughout this section illustrate that all parts of Florida are and can be impacted by hurricanes at different levels over time. Hurricanes are random in distribution, so there is no specific region of Florida that is more at risk than another. However, the coastal areas are more vulnerable to the effects that a hurricane can produce due to their urban development, location, and the storm surge that can be created. III. Historical Occurrences of Tropical Cyclones State of Florida Enhanced Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 3.70

71 Table 3.24 lists the hurricanes and tropical storms that have occurred in the state during the past 10 years. Table 3.24 Previous Tropical Cyclone Occurrences in the Past 10 Years 68 Name Date Name Date Bill June 30, 2003 Rita September 24, 2005 Charley August 13, 2004 Wilma October 23, 2005 Frances September 5, 2004 Fay August 18 23, 2008 Ivan September 16, 2004 Ike September 7, 2008 Jeanne September 26, 2004 Gustav October 27, 2008 Dennis July 10, 2005 Beryl May 28 30, 2012 Katrina August 25, 2005 Debby June 24 25, 2012 Table 3.25 details events of notable significance that fall outside the timeframe for inclusion in Table Date September 16 17, 1928 Okeechobee Hurricane August 31 September 8, 1935 Labor Day Hurricane Table 3.25 Significant Events beyond 10 Years Information At noon on September 16, 1928, Florida received word of a hurricane moving north through the Caribbean region. This Category 4 hurricane made landfall near Palm Beach with a central pressure of 929 millibars. The center passed near Lake Okeechobee. Many people in the Lake Okeechobee area gathered on large barges in the lake while 500 others sought shelter in nearby hotels. The storm hit at 6:00 p.m. with 160 mph winds, causing the lake waters to spill out into the low-lying fields. Dikes collapsed, nearby houses were swept away by severe flooding, and hundreds drowned in the onrushing waters. So many people died that rescue workers were forced to simply tow long lines of bodies along behind their boats. At least 700 victims were buried in a mass grave at West Palm Beach. Officials estimate as many as 2,500 people may have died around the lake, making it the second worst hurricane in U.S. history. An additional 312 people died in Puerto Rico, and 18 more were reported dead in the Bahamas. Damage throughout the region was estimated at between $25 million and $150 million and $50 million in Puerto Rico. After the storm, the government helped begin a $5 million flood control program for the Lake Okeechobee-Everglades region, building an 85-mile long levee, feet high, along the southern lakeshore. The Labor Day hurricane was first given notice when it reached Turks Island in the southern Bahamas chain. Warnings were posted in Florida from Fort Pierce to Fort Myers on August 21. The full force of the storm, however, hit the Florida Keys. With winds in excess of 200 miles per hour, the storm passed over the Florida Keys on September 2 with a minimum barometric pressure of inches. This hurricane is considered to be one of the most severe hurricanes ever recorded in Florida. The Keys, several small islands south of the Florida peninsula, were linked to the mainland by the Florida 68 State of Florida Enhanced Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 3.71

72 Date August 24, 1992 Hurricane Andrew August 31 September 3, 1998 Information East Coast Railway, which had tracks running across a stone causeway 30 feet above the water. On Labor Day, the last train started off for Key West with vacationers returning home from the mainland. As the train began to cross the Long Key viaduct over open water, a 20-foot wave swept over the path, overturned the ten-car train, and swept away both tracks and the bridge. One hundred and fifty people died from the train accident itself. Other destruction was caused by 200 mph winds, and the islands were cut off from the mainland for three days. Relief and supply boats as well as rescue workers finally reached the isolated islands. Damage was totaled at nearly $6 million. Three relief work camps, inhabited by veterans of World War I, were destroyed. The Red Cross estimated that 408 lives were lost. The original construction of the causeway had dammed natural sea channels through the islands into Florida Bay, piling waters up around piers and creating strong undertows that eroded shore supports for the causeway. It forced unusually high waves onto the southern key coast as well. A new roadway has since been constructed a series of bridges instead of a solid causeway to remedy the problem. Hurricane Andrew made a memorable landfall in South Miami-Dade County, causing an estimated $26.5 billion in damages. Andrew produced approximately 7 inches of rain, 165 mph sustained winds, a maximum storm tide of 16 feet, and a total of 96 deaths (including those in Louisiana). In all, Andrew destroyed 25,000 homes and significantly damaged more than 100,000 others in South Florida. Two weeks after the hurricane, the U.S. military deployed nearly 22,000 troops to aid in the recovery efforts, the largest military rescue operation in U.S. history. When Hurricane Andrew hit southeast Miami-Dade County, flying debris in the storm's winds knocked out most ground-based wind measuring instruments, and widespread power outages caused electric-based measuring equipment to fail. The winds were so strong that many wind-measuring tools were incapable of registering the maximum winds. Surviving wind observations and measurements from aircraft reconnaissance, surface pressure, satellite analysis, radar, and distribution of debris and structural failures were used to estimate the surface winds. Though originally classified as a Category 4 storm, extensive postimpact research led to the reclassification of Andrew to a Category 5 storm in Hurricane Earl formed from a strong tropical wave that emerged from the west coast of Africa on August 17. Persistent convection accompanied the wave as it moved westward across the tropical Atlantic. The tropical depression became Tropical Storm Earl while centered about 500 nautical miles south-southwest of New Orleans, Louisiana on August 31. After briefly reaching Category 2 status, Earl made landfall near Panama City, Florida as a Category 1 hurricane on September 3. The strongest winds remained well to the east and southeast of the center, which resulted in the highest storm surge values in the Big Bend area of Florida, well away from the center. The tropical cyclone weakened to below hurricane strength soon after making State of Florida Enhanced Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 3.72

73 Date Information landfall, and became extra-tropical on September 3 while moving northeastward through Georgia. The deepest convection became well removed from the center by this time and the strongest winds were located over the Atlantic waters off the U.S. southeast coast. The extra-tropical cyclone moved off the mid-atlantic coast on September 4, crossed over Newfoundland September 6 and was tracked across the North Atlantic until being absorbed by a larger extra-tropical cyclone (formerly Hurricane Danielle) on September 8. This hurricane was responsible for two deaths in Panama City. The National Flood Insurance Program reported $21.5 million of insured losses in Florida. IV. Probability of Future Tropical Cyclone Events As the population grows, the number of those who have experienced the impact of a major hurricane declines. Approximately 33 percent of the total state population lives within 20 miles of the coast. The majority of the state s residents are not experienced with hurricanes. Based on a study covering the years in an article published in Planning, a national magazine for professional planners, Florida s roads and infrastructure have not kept pace with its rapid growth over the last 30 years. This is a limiting factor for the state s overall evacuation strategy. 69 Of the state s 67 counties, 35 have coastlines bordering either the Atlantic Ocean or the Gulf of Mexico. These counties comprise approximately 1,350 miles of general coastline and 8,436 miles of tidal inlets, bays, and waterways. In addition, contributing to the state s vulnerability to tropical cyclones is the proximity of the Atlantic Ocean or the Gulf of Mexico, coupled with the generally low coastal elevations and the fact that 75 percent of the state s population resides in the 35 coastal counties. Between 1906 and 2012, there have been 27 major (Category 3 or higher) hurricanes that have affected the state. Of all hurricanes that have threatened the state this century, 68 have made landfall within the state and the majority have been Category 1 hurricanes. Generally, the lower intensity hurricanes have made landfall in the northwest portion of the state. The vulnerability of the state to hurricanes varies with the progression of the hurricane season. Early and late in the season (June and October), the region of maximum hurricane activity is in the Gulf of Mexico and the western Caribbean. Most of those systems that move into Florida approach the state from the south or southwest, entering the keys or along the west coast. Mid-season (August and most of September), tropical cyclones develop off the coast of Africa. These systems are known as Cape Verde Storms and approach the state from the east or southeast State of Florida Enhanced Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 3.73

74 V. Tropical Cyclone Impact Analysis Hurricanes will negatively affect the State of Florida with a variety of impacts: Severe coastal flooding Significant building damage from flooding and from high winds. Roofing is particularly susceptible to damage Human and animal deaths and injuries from flooding and from windblown debris Extreme disruptions to the transportation networks and to communications Requirements for sheltering, as well as humanitarian supplies (e.g., food, water, blankets, first aid) Termination of utility services, especially loss of electricity and contamination of the drinking water supplies Extraordinary financial impact for the immediate response and long-term recovery Damage to critical infrastructure that requires long-term recovery. VI LMS Integration The SHMPAT focused on producing a statewide vulnerability analysis based on information provided by county LMS plans. The local risk assessment data provided the SHMPAT with a solid baseline for the overall state vulnerability analysis. Based on the LMS plans in the State of Florida, Figure 3.13 displays the jurisdictional rankings for the tropical cyclone hazard. High-risk Jurisdictions 60 Medium-high risk Jurisdictions 4 Medium-risk Jurisdictions 3 State of Florida Enhanced Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 3.74

75 Low-risk Jurisdictions 0 VII. Figure 3.13 Tropical Cyclone Hazard Ranking by County Tropical Cyclone Hazard Vulnerability Analysis by Jurisdiction State of Florida Enhanced Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 3.75

76 Figure 3.14 contains a summary of the probability of occurrence that each county has based on geographic location for a return period of 20, 50, 100 or 200 years for Category 2 hurricane. Detailed impacts to structure types, based on the return period for Category 2 can also be found in Appendix C: Risk Assessment Tables. The classification of the winds into a Category 2 hurricane is based on wind speeds from the peak gusts wind layer for Florida from Hazus-MH 2.1. Figure 3.14 Category 2 Hurricane Winds Probability of Occurrence This map has not changed since the 2010 update. No significant changes to data would affect the existing map outputs. State of Florida Enhanced Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 3.76

77 Figure 3.15 contains a summary of the probability of occurrence that each county has based on geographic location for a return period of 200, 500, 1,000 or greater than 1,000 years for a Category 5 hurricane. Detailed impacts to structure types, based on the return period for Category 5 can also be found in Appendix C: Risk Assessment Tables. The classification of the winds into a Category 2 hurricane is based on wind speeds from the peak gusts wind layer for Florida from Hazus-MH 2.1. Figure 3.15 Category 5 Hurricane Winds Probability of Occurrence 71 VIII. Assessing Vulnerability of State Facilities In this section, the state s vulnerability to hurricanes is evaluated. The SHMP conducted a vulnerability analysis on hurricanes in 2004 during the original plan development process, which was updated in 2007, 2010 and now This map has not changed since the 2010 update. No significant changes to data that would affect the existing map our outputs. State of Florida Enhanced Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 3.77

78 The risk assessment SHMPAT sub-group chose to evaluate two categories, 2 and 5, of hurricanes for potential state facilities at risk. The vulnerability analysis and determining the exposure value for coastal flooding was based on SLOSH maps. Not all counties are at risk to coastal flooding from storm surge. Using the state facility database provided by the DFS, the risk assessment SHMPAT sub- group identified which facilities lay within return period zones for hurricanes of categories 2 and 5 by overlaying them in a GIS. Summarizing the facilities by total counts and insured values within the zones provided estimates of dollar vulnerability by county. The risk assessment SHMPAT sub-group determined that all counties within Florida are vulnerable to the effects of Category 2 and 5 hurricanes. Therefore, all of the 20,287 state-owned facilities and their insured values are currently exposed to potentially damaging winds from both Category 2 and 5 hurricanes. Figure 3.16 Value of State Facilities Vulnerable to a Category 2 Hurricane and Figure 3.17 indicate the range of state-owned facilities in each county that are exposed to potentially damaging winds from hurricanes at the category 2 and 5 levels, respectively, and the value of the facilities. A detailed breakdown of the types and values of facilities, by county and specified return period can be found in Appendix C: Risk Assessment Tables. State of Florida Enhanced Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 3.78

79 Figure 3.16 Value of State Facilities Vulnerable to a Category 2 Hurricane 72 Figure 3.17 Value of State Facilities Vulnerable to Category 5 Hurricane 73 IX. Estimating Potential Losses by Jurisdiction The state conducted loss estimation on hurricanes during the original plan development process and updated it for the 2013 review and update. Due to Florida s geographic location, the entire state is vulnerable to damage from hurricane winds and impacts from coastal storms. The southern tip of the peninsula and the Florida Keys are especially vulnerable. Table 3.26 provides annualized loss estimates of residential buildings, commercial buildings, medical buildings, educational buildings, and governmental buildings per parcel data from a Category 2 hurricane. 72 Results obtained via GIS analysis of aggregated data sources. 73 Results obtained via GIS analysis of aggregated data sources. State of Florida Enhanced Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 3.79

80 County Table 3.26 Estimated Structures Loss Summary from a Category 2 74 Estimated Total Value Total Value Annualized of of Structures County Loss Structures ($Millions) ($Thousands) ($Millions) Estimated Annualized Loss ($Thousands) Alachua 19, Lee 39,651 1,019 Baker 1, Leon 29, Bay 23, Levy 5, Bradford 3, Liberty Brevard 48,078 1,242 Madison 2, Broward 148,288 9,303 Manatee 28, Calhoun 1, Marion 61, Charlotte 16, Martin 12, Citrus 21, Miami-Dade 160,059 10,297 Clay 24, Monroe 7, Collier 4, Nassau 9, Columbia 6, Okaloosa 17, Desoto 2, Okeechobee 3, Dixie 1, Orange 208,148 3,687 Duval 90,773 1,136 Osceola 21 0 Escambia 4, Palm Beach 126,662 8,041 Flagler 21, Pasco 65,283 1,057 Franklin 2, Pinellas 125,630 2,828 Gadsden 4, Polk 68,331 1,039 Gilchrist 2, Putnam 10, Glades Santa Rosa 5, Gulf 3, Sarasota 25, Hamilton 2,675 9 Seminole 62,889 1,121 Hardee 2, St. Johns 93,109 1,302 Hendry 2, St. Lucie 23,357 1,497 Hernando 21, Sumter 2, Highlands 16, Suwannee 2, Hillsborough 255,252 4,939 Taylor 1, Holmes 2, Union Indian River 3, Volusia 20, Jackson 9, Wakulla 4, Jefferson 2,645 9 Walton 1, Lafayette Washington 3, Lake 29, Results obtained via GIS analysis of aggregated data sources. State of Florida Enhanced Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 3.80

81 Table 3.27 provides annualized loss estimates of residential buildings, commercial buildings, medical buildings, educational buildings, and governmental buildings per parcel data per county from a Category 5 hurricane. County Table 3.27 Estimated Structures Loss Summary from a Category 5 75 Total Value Annualized Total Value of Structures Loss County of Structures ($Millions) ($Millions) ($Millions) Annualized Loss ($Millions) Broward 146, Monroe 16, Charlotte 16, Okaloosa Collier 59, Palm Beach 105, Escambia 30, Santa Rosa 11, Lee 98, Sarasota 23, Miami-Dade 291, National Climatic Data Center Hurricane/Coastal Storm Loss Estimation Data from the NCDC accessed through the SHELDUS provides details about the historical hurricanes and tropical storms that have affected the state. 76 Table 3.28 shows a breakdown of the types of tropical cyclones and associated annualized losses that have occurred in Florida from 1993 to Table 3.28 Historical Tropical Cyclones Summary Type of Storm NCDC Reports Average per Annualized Property Annualized Crop Year Loss ($Billions) Loss ($Millions) Hurricane Tropical Storm Total Note: NCDC Reports is the count of reports that included property and/or crop damage from X. Estimating Potential Losses of State Facilities The SHMPAT updated loss estimations on hurricanes in the 2013 plan review and update. The State of Florida continues to be extremely vulnerable to the effects of hurricanes, placing billions of dollars in property at risk. Table 3.29 and Table 3.30 show the total exposure and estimated losses of state-owned facilities from a Category 2 and Category 5 hurricane by county. The analysis contains coastal counties only as they would likely be hardest hit. 75 Results obtained via GIS analysis of aggregated data sources State of Florida Enhanced Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 3.81

82 Table 3.29 Facilities Losses Summary in a Category 2 77 County Total Facilities Value within return Estimated Annualized periods of years ($Millions) Facility Losses ($Thousands) Alachua 3, Baker Bay Bradford Brevard Broward Calhoun Charlotte Citrus Clay Collier Columbia Desoto Dixie Duval Escambia Flagler Franklin Gadsden Gilchrist Glades Gulf Hamilton Hardee Hendry Hernando Highlands Hillsborough 1, Holmes Indian River Jackson Jefferson Lafayette Lake Lee Leon 3, Levy Liberty Results obtained via GIS analysis of aggregated data sources. State of Florida Enhanced Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 3.82

83 County Total Facilities Value within return Estimated Annualized periods of years ($Millions) Facility Losses ($Thousands) Madison Manatee Marion Martin Miami-Dade 1, Monroe Nassau Okaloosa Okeechobee Orange 1, Osceola Palm Beach 1, Pasco Pinellas Polk Putnam Santa Rosa Sarasota Seminole St. Johns St. Lucie Sumter Suwannee Taylor Union Volusia Wakulla Walton Washington County Table 3.30 Facilities Losses Summary in a Category 5 78 Total Facilities Value within return Estimated Annualized periods of 200-1,000 ($Millions) Loss ($Millions) 78 Results obtained via GIS analysis of aggregated data sources. State of Florida Enhanced Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 3.83

84 County Total Facilities Value within return Estimated Annualized periods of 200-1,000 ($Millions) Loss ($Millions) Broward Charlotte Collier Escambia Lee Miami-Dade Monroe Okaloosa Palm Beach Santa Rosa Sarasota Severe Storms and Tornadoes Profile I. Severe Storms and Tornadoes Descriptions and Background Information Severe Storms Florida is considered the thunderstorm capital of the United States. A thunderstorm forms when moist, unstable air is lifted vertically into the atmosphere. The lifting of this air results in condensation and the release of latent heat. The process to initiate vertical lifting can be caused by: Unequal warming of the surface of the Earth. Orographic lifting due to topographic obstruction of airflow. Dynamic lifting because of the presence of a frontal zone. 79 Thunderstorms affect a relatively small area when compared to a hurricane. The typical thunderstorm is 15 miles in diameter and lasts an average of 30 minutes. Despite their small size, all thunderstorms are dangerous. Of the estimated 100,000 thunderstorms that occur each year in the United States, about 10 percent are classified as severe. The National Weather Service (NWS) considers a thunderstorm severe if it produces hail at least one inch in diameter, winds of 58 mph or stronger, or a tornado. 80 The three key elements of a thunderstorm are wind, water, and lightning. In the United States, thousands of acres of crops are heavily damaged or destroyed by storm-borne hail each year. The Tampa region has State of Florida Enhanced Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 3.84

85 the highest incidences of thunderstorms in the United States, with Florida being first in the United States for lightning strikes per square mile. Florida also leads the nation in lightning-related deaths, and is among the top ten states prone to devastation from tornadoes the thunderstorm s most vicious offspring. Thunderstorms deliver most of the state s rainfall. Their winds also help invigorate sluggish environments in ponds, lakes, and estuaries, and break up oil spills. Tornadoes A tornado is a violent windstorm characterized by a twisting, funnel-shaped cloud. A tornado s wind speed normally ranges from 40 to more than 300 mph. Waterspouts are weak tornadoes that form over warm water and are most common along the Gulf Coast and the southeastern states. Waterspouts occasionally move inland, becoming tornadoes and causing damage and injuries. Florida has two tornado seasons. The summer tornado season runs from June until September and has the highest frequencies of storm generation, with usual intensities of EF0 or EF1 on the Enhanced Fujita Scale. This includes those tornadoes associated with land-falling tropical cyclones. The deadly spring season, from February through April, is characterized by more powerful tornadoes because of the presence of the jet stream. When the jet stream digs south into Florida and is accompanied by a strong cold front and a strong squall line of thunderstorms, the jet stream's high-level winds of 100 to 200 mph often strengthen a thunderstorm into what meteorologists call a supercell or mesocyclone. These powerful storms can move at speeds of 30 to 50 mph, produce dangerous downburst winds, large hail, and usually the most deadly tornadoes. Unlike hurricanes, which produce wind speeds of similar values over relatively widespread areas (when compared to tornadoes), the maximum winds in tornadoes are often confined to extremely small areas and vary tremendously over very short distances, even within the funnel itself. The Enhanced Fujita Tornado Scale, (or the EF Scale ), is the definitive scale for estimating wind speeds within tornadoes based upon the damage done to buildings and structures since The EF Scale is used extensively by the NWS in investigating tornadoes (all tornadoes are now assigned an EF Scale number), and by engineers in correlating damage to buildings and techniques with different wind speeds caused by tornadoes. Table 3.31 outlines the Fujita Scale, the derived EF Scale and the operational EF Scale. Though the Enhanced Fujita scale itself ranges up to EF28 for the damage indicators, the strongest tornadoes max out in the EF5 range (262 to 317 mph). State of Florida Enhanced Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 3.85

86 Table 3.31 Enhanced Fujita Tornado Scale 81 Fujita Scale Derived EF Scale Operational EF Scale F Number Fastest 1/4- mile (mph) 3-Second Gust (mph) EF Number 3-Second Gust (mph) EF Number 3-Second Gust (mph) Over 200 Tornadoes develop under three scenarios: (1) along a squall line ahead of an advancing cold front moving from the north; (2) in connection with thunderstorm squall lines during hot, humid weather; and (3) in the outer portion of a tropical cyclone. Because the temperature contrast between air masses is generally less pronounced in the state, tornadoes are typically less severe in Florida than in other parts of the country. The most common and usually the least destructive tornadoes in Florida are warm season ones. The cool season tornadoes are sometimes very destructive; they account for a disproportional large share of the tornado fatalities in Florida. They are typically caused by large-scale weather disturbances and sometimes occur in groups of six or more along fastmoving squall lines. This type of tornado usually occurs around the perimeter of the leading edge of the storm and sometimes results in the outbreak of several tornadoes. They generally move in an easterly direction. II. Geographic Areas Affected by Severe Storms and Tornadoes Tornadoes and severe thunderstorms can occur anywhere throughout the entire state. As the number of structures and the population increases, the probability that a tornado will cause property damage or human casualties also increases. When compared with other states, Florida ranks third in the average number of tornado events per year. These rankings are based upon data collected for all states and territories for tornado events between the years 1991 and The coastal portion of the state s Gulf Coast (between Tampa and Tallahassee), along with inland portions of the Panhandle region, have generally experienced more tornadoes than other areas of the state, primarily due to the high frequency of thunderstorms making their way east through the Gulf of Mexico State of Florida Enhanced Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 3.86

87 III. Historical Occurrences of Severe Storms and Tornadoes Severe Storms Severe storms occur frequently in Florida during the summer. According to the National Climatic Data Center, from 10/1/2006 to 12/31/2011, there have been 1,919 thunderstorm and high wind events and 910 events with hail greater than 0.75 inch. Considering the severe storm and tornado activity in the state, there are no specific hazard zones. Figure 3.18 shows the average number of severe thunderstorms per year by geographic area. Tornadoes Figure 3.18 Severe Thunderstorms from 1950 to 2011 Figure 3.19 shows all of the tornado occurrences in Florida from 1950 to For the populations at risk and building value tables, please see the tables at the beginning of Section 3.1: Identifying Hazards referring to statewide population and building values. For a comprehensive list of all tornado activity for Florida, please visit The Tornado History Project website. 85 State of Florida Enhanced Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 3.87

88 Figure 3.19 Tornado occurrences from 1950 to 2012 Table 3.32 outlines the severe tornado events in Florida since Date Table 3.32 Florida Severe Tornado Events 83 Information 2/2/2007 F3 Tornado in Lake and Sumter counties, 8 fatalities, causing $114 million in damage. 7 tornadoes in Brevard, Lake, Orange, Osceola, Seminole, and 2/22 23/1998 Volusia counties ranging from F1-F3. Deadliest tornado event in Florida history with 42 people killed and 260 injured. 2/2/1998 Costliest tornado with $205 million in damage. 4/15/1958 Tornado in Polk County, rated F4 on Fujita scale, causing up to $50 thousand in damages State of Florida Enhanced Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 3.88

89 SHELDUS TM Spatial Hazard Events and Losses Database for the United States 84 SHELDUS is s a county-level hazard data set for the U.S. for 18 different natural hazard events types that includes the beginning date, location (county and state), property losses, crop losses, injuries, and fatalities that affected each county. The following maps (Figure 3.20, Figure 3.21, and Figure 3.22) reflect the number of tornadoes, severe storms, and lightning recorded from 1960 to 2010, respectively. Figure 3.20 Number of Tornado Events since State of Florida Enhanced Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 3.89

90 Figure 3.21 Number of Severe Storm Events since 1960 State of Florida Enhanced Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 3.90

91 Figure 3.22 Number of Lightning Events since 1960 IV. Probability of Future Severe Storm and Tornado Events Florida averages approximately 51 tornadoes, three deaths and 60 injuries per year since According to the NCDC, the state experienced 564 tornado events of an F1 magnitude or higher over the past 31 years from 1980 through October of These events caused 103 deaths, 1,376 injuries, and approximately $1,352,577,500 in property damage. 85 Although the Midwest has the reputation for the worst tornadoes, Florida is the state that experiences the most tornadoes per square mile of all states. Florida s susceptibility to wind damage is further compounded by the fact that certain areas of the state contain a large concentration of mobile home residents. Mobile homes are extremely vulnerable to wind damage. There are more than 850,000 mobile homes within the state, with one in every five new homes being a manufactured home National Climatic Data Center, State of Florida Enhanced Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 3.91

92 V. Tornado Impact Analysis Tornadoes can negatively affect the State of Florida with a variety of impacts and consequences: Tornadoes cause localized damage in the specific area of impact and are part of a larger storm system that affects communities with flooding, lightning, hail, and straight-line winds. Humans and animals are often injured or killed by severe tornado activity. Most cases involve a direct impact combined with minimal shelter or protection. Properties and facilities are often damaged by tornado activity. The severity of the damage depends on the type of construction, the age of the facility, and the strength of the storm, and results can vary from minor roof damage to the complete demolition of the structure. Buildings, facilities, and infrastructure are often impacted by the debris caused by a tornado. Common consequences of tornadoes are power outages and power line damage caused by fallen limbs and trees. This often occurs with large trees that have not been trimmed and are located near structures or power lines. It is not possible to identify the locations of at-risk facilities as tornadoes strike randomly throughout the State of Florida. All state facilities and critical locations were deemed vulnerable to this hazard. Losses due to tornadoes tend to be localized and do not tend to have many long-term effects on the economy of the affected area. After a tornado event, there is often an increase in economic activity as people rebuild their homes and repair additional damages. The monetary losses can be high in terms of actual damage to specific locations combined with injuries and the potential loss of life for humans and animals. Tornadoes usually do not have a long-term impact on the environment. Extreme damage may occur in a localized area, but long-term effects on the flora and fauna in the surrounding areas are not typical. Electricity and other essential services to local areas can be disrupted during storm events. In severe cases, power can be lost for several days or weeks. In most cases, however, disruptions in power are usually short-term and service is quickly restored by repair crews and responders. VI LMS Integration The SHMPAT focused on producing a statewide vulnerability analysis based on estimates provided by the LMS plans. The 67 multi-jurisdictional LMS plans provided a solid baseline for the overall state vulnerability analysis. Risk assessment information from the LMS plans is current as of May 1, State of Florida Enhanced Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 3.92

93 Based on the LMS plans in the State of Florida, Figure 3.23 displays the jurisdictional rankings for the tornado hazard. Not all counties have identified tornadoes as one of their hazards. High-risk Jurisdictions 22 Medium-high risk Jurisdictions 16 Medium-risk Jurisdictions 17 Low-risk Jurisdictions 8 Figure 3.23 Tornado Hazard Rankings by County State of Florida Enhanced Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 3.93

94 Based on the LMS plans in the State of Florida, Figure 3.24 displays the jurisdictional rankings for the severe storm hazard. Not all counties have identified severe storms as one of their hazards. High-risk Jurisdictions 26 Medium-high risk Jurisdictions 18 Medium-risk Jurisdictions 14 Low-risk Jurisdictions 1 Figure 3.24 Severe Storm Hazard Rankings by County State of Florida Enhanced Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 3.94

95 VII. Severe Storms and Tornadoes Hazard Vulnerability Analysis by Jurisdiction 87 The SHMPAT has conducted a vulnerability analysis on tornadoes and severe storms in all of its past plan updates and again in the 2013 plan update. Every county is at risk for tornadoes. Table 3.33 outlines, by county, the historical occurrences of tornadoes by severity. The following impact analysis provides a detailed description of the state s vulnerability based on exposure of population and buildings to tornadoes and frequency of tornadoes by county. Table 3.33 Frequency of Tornadoes by County, County Counts by F/EF Number Frequency Total Number (Tornadoes per Year) Alachua Baker Bay Bradford Brevard Broward Calhoun Charlotte Citrus Clay Collier Columbia DeSoto Dixie Duval Escambia Flagler Franklin Gadsden Gilchrist Glades Gulf Hamilton Hardee Hendry Hernando Highlands Tornado History Project searchable database of tornadoes from years ( 88 Ibid. State of Florida Enhanced Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 3.95

96 County Counts by F/EF Number Frequency Total Number (Tornadoes per Year) Hillsborough Holmes Indian River Jackson Jefferson Lafayette Lake Lee Leon Levy Liberty Madison Manatee Marion Martin Miami-Dade Monroe Nassau Okaloosa Okeechobee Orange Osceola Palm Beach Pasco Pinellas Polk Putnam St. Johns St. Lucie Santa Rosa Sarasota Seminole Sumter Suwannee Taylor Union Volusia Wakulla Walton Washington Note: Tornadoes reported after Feb. 1, 2007, use an EF number, in reference to the Enhanced Fujita Scale of wind speed estimates based on damage. State of Florida Enhanced Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 3.96

97 Population Vulnerability The following analysis was performed as part of the 2010 plan development process. The NCDC has emerged as a more consistent source of data for exhibiting severe storms, as such the updated maps and data have used this source. Historical evidence shows that most of the state is vulnerable to severe storm/thunderstorm and tornado activity. Tornadoes will always occur in conjunction with a tropical cyclone or thunderstorm. Figure 3.25 breaks down the annual average number of historical occurrences of severe thunderstorms. Figure 3.25 Historical Thunderstorm occurrences per year. 89 VIII. Assessing Vulnerability of State Facilities A vulnerability analysis for tornadoes and severe storms was conducted for the 2013 plan update. Tornado risk was determined by considering all of the land within the counties at risk for tornado activity. Tornadoes can strike anywhere in the state; therefore, all of the 20,287 stateowned facilities and their insured values are equally at risk. 89 Data obtained from NCDC database. State of Florida Enhanced Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 3.97

98 IX. Estimating Potential Losses by Jurisdiction The SHMPAT conducted a loss estimation on tornadoes and severe storms during the original plan development process and updated it during the 2013 review and update process. Severe Storm Loss Estimation Historical evidence shows that most of the state is vulnerable to severe storms. This is a hazard during major tropical storms or hurricanes or during fronts that move through the state. Using the updated NCDC data, the vulnerability of facilities in each jurisdiction to thunderstorms were weighted according to the risk of being affected by a storm and comparative values to determine the annualized loss. Table 3.34 provides annualized loss estimates of residential buildings, commercial buildings, medical buildings, educational buildings, and governmental buildings per parcel data per county from severe storms. County Table 3.34 Severe Storm Structures Summary 90 Estimated Annualized County Loss ($Thousands) Total Value of Structures ($Millions) Total Value of Structures ($Millions) Estimated Annualized Loss ($Thousands) Alachua Lake 25, Baker 1, Lee 88, ,335 Bay 22, Leon 26, Bradford 1, Levy 2, Brevard 48, Liberty Broward 141, ,250 Madison 1, Calhoun Manatee 26, Charlotte 15, Marion 28, Citrus 17, Martin 12, Clay 17, Miami-Dade 157, ,242 Collier 31, Monroe 7, Columbia 5, Nassau 8, Desoto 2, Okaloosa 19, Dixie Okeechobee 2, Duval 85, ,760 Orange 120, ,771 Escambia 31, Osceola Flagler 11, Palm Beach 122, ,101 Franklin 1, Pasco 47, ,099 Gadsden 3, Pinellas 91, ,979 Gilchrist Polk 51, ,190 Glades Putnam 7, Gulf 1, Santa Rosa 82, , Results obtained via GIS analysis of aggregated data sources. State of Florida Enhanced Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 3.98

99 County Total Value of Structures ($Millions) Estimated Annualized Loss ($Thousands) County Total Value of Structures ($Millions) Estimated Annualized Loss ($Thousands) Hamilton 1, Sarasota 27, Hardee 1, Seminole 14, Hendry 2, St. Johns 44, Hernando 20, St. Lucie 30, Highlands 10, Sumter Hillsborough 139, ,222 Suwannee 1, Holmes 1, Taylor Indian River 15, Union Jackson 4, Volusia Jefferson 1, Wakulla 2, Lafayette Washington 3, Tornado Loss Estimation The following estimation was performed in 2013 as part of the revision plan development process. Historical evidence shows that most of the state is vulnerable to tornado activity. This hazard can result from severe thunderstorm activity or may occur during a major tropical storm or hurricane. The following estimates are based on historic NCDC data combined with 2010 demographics parcel data and state facilities data. It is weighted according to the relative historical impacts and vulnerability, as seen through the comparative value of structures. Table 3.35 provides annualized loss estimates of residential buildings, commercial buildings, medical buildings, educational buildings, and governmental buildings per parcel data per county from tornado activity. County Total Value of Structures ($Millions) Table 3.35 Tornado Structures Summary 91 Estimated Annualized Loss County ($Millions) Total Value of Structures ($Millions) Estimated Annualized Loss ($Millions) Alachua 22,769, Lee 62,351, Baker 1,392, Leon 24,359, Bay 14,181, Levy 2,359, Bradford 1,555, Liberty 392, Brevard 52,019, Madison 1,095, Broward 158,558, Manatee 29,693, Calhoun 738, Marion 25,137, Charlotte 16,260, Martin 15,215, Citrus 10,868, Miami-Dade 200,767, Clay 14,114, Monroe 10,442, Results obtained via GIS analysis of aggregated data sources. State of Florida Enhanced Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 3.99

100 County Total Value of Structures ($Millions) Estimated Annualized Loss ($Millions) County Total Value of Structures ($Millions) Estimated Annualized Loss ($Millions) Collier 33,076, Nassau 5,328, Columbia 3,989, Okaloosa 16,423, Desoto 2,071, Okeechobee 2,620, Dixie 867, Orange 104,657, Duval 73,915, Osceola 22,961, Escambia 25,849, Palm Beach 131,609, Flagler 8,301, Pasco 37,249, Franklin 1,104, Pinellas 86,745, Gadsden 2,939, Polk 47,212, Gilchrist 832, Putnam 4,950, Glades 673, Santa Rosa 10,625, Gulf 1,108, Sarasota 13,595, Hamilton 702, Seminole 7,900, Hardee 1,661, St. Johns 41,340, Hendry 2,076, St. Lucie 40,204, Hernando 13,595, Sumter 17,307, Highlands 7,900, Suwannee 24,568, Hillsborough 110,893, Taylor 7,026, Holmes 1,011, Union 2,154, Indian River 14,603, Volusia 1,344, Jackson 3,095, Wakulla 680, Jefferson 802, Walton 48,755, Lafayette 445, Washington 1,797, Lake 23,973, X. Estimating Potential Losses of State Facilities The SHMPAT conducted loss estimations on tornadoes in 2004 during the original plan development process as part of the hurricane wind section above. During the 2010 plan update and revision process, this tornado-specific estimation has been enhanced and expanded. The 2013 plan updates the 2010 revision process. The State of Florida continues to be vulnerable to the effects of tornadoes, placing billions of dollars in property at risk. Table 3.36 shows the total exposure and estimated losses of state-owned facilities to tornadoes by county. State of Florida Enhanced Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 3.100

101 County Value of Facilities ($Millions) Table 3.36 Tornado Facilities Summary 92 Estimated Annualized County Facility Losses ($Thousands) Value of Facilities ($Millions) Estimated Annualized Facility Losses ($Thousands) Alachua 5, Lee 2, Baker Leon 3, Bay Levy Bradford Liberty 59 0 Brevard 1, Madison 96 0 Broward 6, Manatee Calhoun 78 0 Marion 1, Charlotte Martin Citrus Miami-Dade 11, Clay Monroe Collier Nassau Columbia Okaloosa Desoto Okeechobee Dixie 67 0 Orange 5, Duval 3, Osceola 1, Escambia 1, Palm Beach 5, Flagler Pasco 1, Franklin 47 0 Pinellas 3, Gadsden Polk 2, Gilchrist 80 0 Putnam Glades 19 0 Santa Rosa Gulf Sarasota Hamilton Seminole Hardee St Johns 1, Hendry St Lucie 1, Hernando Sumter Highlands Suwannee Hillsborough 6, Taylor Holmes 92 0 Union Indian River Volusia 1, Jackson Wakulla Jefferson 49 0 Walton Lafayette 37 0 Washington Lake Results obtained via GIS analysis of aggregated data sources. State of Florida Enhanced Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 3.101

102 3.3.4 Wildfire Profile I. Wildfire Description and Background Information Wildfire is defined by the Florida Forest Service (FFS) as any fire that does not meet management objectives or is out of control. Wildfires occur in Florida every year and are part of the natural cycle of Florida s fire-adapted ecosystems. Many of these fires are quickly suppressed before they can damage or destroy property, homes and lives. There are four types of wildfires: Surface Fires: Burn along the forest floor consuming the litter layer and small branches on or near the ground. Ground Fires: Smolder or creep slowly underground. These fires usually occur during periods of prolonged drought and may burn for weeks or months until sufficient rainfall extinguishes the fire, or it runs out of fuel. Crown Fires: Spread rapidly by the wind, moving through the tops of the trees. Wildland/Urban Interface Fires: Fires occurring within the WUI in areas where structures and other human developments meet or intermingle with wildlands or vegetative fuels. Homes and other flammable structures can become fuel for WUI fires. Prescribed or controlled fires have been used on both public and private lands across the state to replace the natural benefits that wildfires can provide. Prescribed burns help to reduce the amount of flammable vegetation in an area which in turn lessens the intensity of a wildfire that may occur in that same area. Firefighters then have an opportunity to suppress the fire while it is small and easier to control. Approximately 70 percent to 80 percent of all wildfires in Florida are caused by humans. Wildfire prevention and public awareness campaigns have helped to greatly reduce the number of human-caused wildfires in Florida. Other measures used to help reduce the number and severity of wildfires includes red flag warnings issued by the NWS and county burn bans. Environmental short-term loss caused by a wildland fire can include the destruction of wildlife habitat and watersheds. Long-term effects include reduced access to affected recreational areas, destruction of cultural and economic resources and community infrastructure, and vulnerability to flooding due to the destruction of watersheds. The type and amount of fuel, as well as its burning qualities and level of moisture, affect wildfire potential and behavior. The continuity of fuels, expressed in both horizontal and vertical components, is also a factor because it expresses the pattern of vegetative growth and open areas. Topography is important because it affects the movement of air (and thus the fire) over the ground surface. The slope and shape of terrain can change the rate of speed at which the fire travels. Temperature, humidity, and wind (both short- and long-term) affect the severity and duration of wildfires. State of Florida Enhanced Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 3.102

103 II. Geographic Areas Affected by Wildfires Of Florida s approximately 37,478,400 acres (including water), about 30 percent is urban, industrial, or wetland and another 31 percent is agricultural, including crops, pasture, and range. 93 Approximately 39 percent, or 16.2 million, of Florida s acreage is covered by forests. 91 percent of this forestland is considered to be timberland (i.e., commercially productive land). Six percent is classified as woodland (i.e., unproductive forestland). 94 State and national forests make up 19 percent of Florida s forestlands, with 33 state forests and three national forests. 95 Protected acreage is any wildland or forest that is not in a city or municipality whether incorporated or unincorporated. The protected forest acreage does not include acreage under federal jurisdiction. In 2005, Florida timberlands totaled 15.6 million acres and supported more harvestable wood volume than any time in the previous 18 years. 96 However, Florida s total acreage of commercial forestland is slowly declining due to other more profitable land uses, primarily residential and commercial development. Currently, there are approximately 16 million acres of commercial forest in Florida. 97 The wildland-urban interface (WUI) is largely the result of development in areas once considered wildlands where people desire to live in a more natural setting. Natural landscaping, which allows natural vegetation to grow and accumulate near homes, is a hazardous trend and does not mitigate the risk of fire reaching into a homeowners land. Many subdivision layouts are designed with numerous dead-end streets and cul-de-sacs, creating access issues for firefighting services and equipment. In addition, many of these areas do not have wet hydrants or other sources of water for firefighting. WUI areas can be classified into the following types: The mixed interface contains structures that are scattered throughout rural areas. Usually, there are isolated homes surrounded by larger or smaller areas of land. An occluded interface is characterized by isolated (either large or small) areas within an urban area. An example may be a city park surrounded by urban homes trying to preserve some contact with a natural setting. A class interface is where homes, especially those crowded onto smaller lots in new subdivisions, press along the wildland vegetation along a broad front. Vast adjacent wildland areas can propagate a massive flame front during a wildfire, and numerous homes are put at risk by a single fire. A national compilation from the U.S. Geological Survey shows all fires from 1980 through 2003 that burned over 250 acres total. Based on this information, the larger fires in Florida tend to occur in the southwest portion of the state or in a few areas across the northern State of Florida Enhanced Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 3.103

104 region. The NCDC shows that 83 wild and forest fires have burned in Florida from October 2006 through December 2011, resulting in three injuries and approximately $14 million in property damages. 98 The northwest, northeast, and central regions of the state are the major forested areas. South Florida s protected land has more of a potential threat for wildfire due to the humus material in the soil and the type of vegetation. However, damages in this area are not expected to be as costly as the threat to forestland. With more commercial forestland located in the northern portions of the state, the chances of a forest fire causing financial damage are greater in this part of the state. Grasslands, marshes, and muck lands in and near the Everglades (approximately 4.3 million acres) have their own unique conditions that lead to increased threat from fire damage. The Everglades itself has approximately 1.4 million gross area acres, including federal and nonfederal land. These lands are exceptionally vulnerable during drought conditions, leading to increased threat from fire damage. When drought conditions prevail, the soil, as well as the vegetation, is prone to combustion. The increasing popularity of outdoor recreation means greater numbers of people visiting wildland areas. Additionally, urban sprawl in various parts of the state has increased due to rapid growth in population. This, coupled with extensive drainage problems from storm water runoff, improper site development, and old water systems, has severely altered the characteristics of the water table and increased the potential for disastrous fires in this area. Drought conditions increase the probability of wildfires. Wildland-Urban Interface (WUI) Population movement trends in the U.S. have resulted in rapid development in the outlying fringes of metropolitan areas and in the rural areas with attractive recreational and aesthetic amenities, such as forests. This demographic change is increasing the size of the WUI, defined as the area where structures and other human development meet or intermingle with undeveloped wildland. The WUI creates an environment for fire to move readily between vegetation fuels, such as brush or forests; and structural fuels, such as houses and buildings. The U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service and the University of Wisconsin (Madison) released new scientific maps depicting United States communities and lands within the WUI. This is the first consistent nationwide representation of the WUI as defined in the Federal Register (Volume 66:751, 2001) and makes mapping and analysis a reality at the national, state, and local levels. Two types of WUI were mapped-- intermix and interface. Intermix WUI are areas where housing and vegetation intermingle; interface WUI are areas with housing in close proximity to contiguous wildland vegetation State of Florida Enhanced Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 3.104

105 III. Historical Occurrences of Wildfires The most naturally caused fires typically occur in July due to lightning and coincide with the height of the thunderstorm season. Other causes are human-caused, including arson, carelessness, debris/trash burning, and operation of equipment that may emit sparks. Table 3.37 includes a brief narrative for significant fire seasons in the state. Table 3.37 Significant Wildfires by Year 99 Date Information 1998 After the late winter rain stopped, severe drought conditions developed and lasted from April through June of As a result of the extreme drought conditions, high temperatures, and buildup of flammable wildland fuels, the 1998 wildfires began. The first fire broke out on May 25, 1998, in the Apalachicola National Forest. In a two-month period, almost 500,000 acres of the state had burned in approximately 2,300 separate wildfires. An entire county was evacuated as a protective measure for a series of fires, and the total cost of the fire season reached over $160 million. The wildfires of 1998 damaged or destroyed over 300 homes, and the value of lost timber exceeded $300 million Florida s drought continued and, as a result, the state was again stricken with a severe wildfire outbreak. The year 1999 saw nearly 4,500 wildfires burn more than 365,000 acres statewide. May 2001 A smoldering lightning fire flared up into the Mallory Swamp Fire. It became one of the largest wildfires in Florida s history at that time, burning more than 60,000 acres and causing over $10 million in timber losses, but it did not burn any houses because of its remote location in Dixie and Lafayette Counties The wildfires that put much of Florida in a several weeks-long smoky haze were started May 5 by a lightning strike on Bugaboo Island in Georgia's Okefenokee National Wildlife Refuge. Thick smoke from area wildfires forced officials to close stretches of I-75 and I-10 in northern Florida. A section of I- 95 in Duval County, from Pecan Park to State Road A1A, was also closed due to smoke, as was a section of I-75 in Broward County near fire-ravaged Collier County in southern Florida. The fires scorched at least 212,000 acres, according to the joint information center, a coalition of state and federal agencies. Of those acres, 101,000 were in Florida and about 111,000 were in Georgia. Interstate 75 was closed from Valdosta, Georgia; south to Lake City, Florida, and Interstate 10 was closed from Sanderson, Florida, eastward to June 2007 Live Oak. There were 17 wildfires burning within approximately 300 acres and a much larger number of smaller fires According to the Florida Department of Agriculture, in 2009 there were 2,863 wildfires, which burned 136,623 acres. 100 Much of the wildfire activity 99 Florida Department of Fire. Wildfire Hazard Mitigation Annex State of Florida Enhanced Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 3.105

106 Date Information occurred unusually early in the year with 1,024 wildfires occurring January 1 March As of July 15, 2012, Florida was experiencing a heavy wildfire season with 2,369 fires to date. In January, smoke from wildfires significantly reduced visibility resulting in a multicar accident on I-75, which killed 11 people. IV. Probability of Future Wildfire Events Approximately 80 percent of all wildfires in Florida occur within one mile of the WUI. Florida has a year round fire season with the most active part taking place from April to July. The majority of wildfires in Florida (70-80 percent) are caused by humans with arson and escaped debris burning being the top two causes. The largest number of lightning-caused fires occurs in July. The drier months tend to be January, February and March but this is not always the case depending on drought conditions and frequency of frontal passages. Dry months, combined with low humidity and high wind have the highest number of fires reported. The Florida Forest Service has developed a web-based Geographic Information System (GIS) mapping application called Fire Risk Assessment System (FRAS). This system provides statewide risk data that assists in determining high-risk areas and can be accessed at: FRAS uses wildfire fuel types and densities, environmental conditions, and fire history to produce a Level of Concern (LOC), which is a number on a scale that runs from 1 (low concern) to 9 (high concern), for a given geographic area. The computation of LOC incorporates two other indices: the Wildland Fire Susceptibility Index (WFSI) and the Fire Effects Index. The WFSI calculates the probability of a given acre burning, given a probability of ignition based on historical data, and expected fire size based on a rate of spread. The rate of spread depends on fuel types, topography, shading from the sun, wind conditions, and potential weather conditions in the given geographic area. Based on necessary assumptions, this index is not the probability of an acre burning but a relative comparison of index values between areas in the state. The wildland fire susceptibility analysis integrates the probability of an acre igniting and wildland fire behavior. It combines the data from the fire occurrence areas with fire behavior data developed by FlamMap. An index was computed for each 30x30 meter cell of burnable vegetation within the state. Figure 3.26 shows the graphic representation of this analysis. State of Florida Enhanced Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 3.106

107 Figure 3.26 Florida s Wildfire Susceptibility The Fire Effects Index accounts for environmental effects such as critical facilities, utility corridors, farmland, and the WUI in the given geographic area. Also included in the Fire Effects Index is the estimated suppression monetary cost, based on historic suppression costs for particular fuel types. Based on the National Interagency Fire Center (NIFC) assessments, the State of Florida has remained in the above normal range for previous years and is forecast to continue into May 2012; therefore, the probability of fire events in the foreseeable future continues to be relatively high for the entire state. 101 Appendix C: Risk Assessment Tables contains a detailed listing by county of the type and number of facilities for each LOC. In addition, the FFS has completed a detailed state-wide wildfire hazard mitigation plan which provides additional information on wildfires in Florida. Please see Appendix E: Wildfire Mitigation Annex for a copy of the plan Retrieved May State of Florida Enhanced Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 3.107

108 V. Wildfire Impact Analysis Wildfires will negatively affect the State of Florida with a variety of impacts: Forested lands and any surrounding urban areas, WUI, are most at risk to wildfires. Potential risks include destruction of land, property, and structures, as well as injuries and loss of life. Although rare, deaths and injuries usually occur at the beginning stages of wildfires when sudden flare-ups result from high wind conditions. In most situations, however, people have the opportunity to evacuate the area and avoid bodily harm. Responders are most at risk during the process of fire suppression. Responders put themselves in harm s way to contain the fire and save lives and property. Firefighters are often trapped by fires that either grow or suddenly change directions. Wildfires are usually small and quickly contained in Florida, and therefore the state government does not expect any events to result in the loss of the ability to deliver essential services or continue day-to-day government functions. Major fires have the ability to disrupt transportation in large areas of the state. The recent events in 2012 resulted in closures to the interstate system that affects local residents as well as seasonal tourists. VI LMS Integration The SHMPAT focused on producing a statewide vulnerability analysis based on estimates provided by the LMS plans. The 67 multi-jurisdictional LMS plans provided a solid baseline for the overall state vulnerability analysis. Risk assessment information from the LMS plans is current as of May 1, Based on the LMS plans in the State of Florida, Figure 3.27 displays the jurisdictional rankings for the wildfire hazard. High-risk Jurisdictions 30 Medium-high risk Jurisdictions 11 Medium-risk Jurisdictions 21 Low-risk Jurisdictions 5 State of Florida Enhanced Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 3.108

109 Figure 3.27 Wildfire Hazard Rankings by County VII. Wildfire Hazard Vulnerability and Impact Analysis by Jurisdiction Population at Risk Approximately 9.9 percent of the population of Florida (1,848,394 people) reside in an area of high wildfire risk (LOC 7-9). Another 11.3 percent of the state s population (2,112,245 people) live in medium-risk wildfire areas denoted by LOC 4-6. The five counties with the highest number of persons within LOC 7-9 are Orange, Polk, Duval, Volusia, and Osceola counties, which account for 36.6 percent of the statewide population at high risk from wildfire. The counties with the highest percent of their countywide population at high risk from wildfire are: Desoto (40.6 percent), Flagler (39.7 percent), Charlotte (31.5 percent), Osceola (30.9 percent), and Hardee (29.9 percent). Table 3.38 shows the population by county and wildfire level of concern. State of Florida Enhanced Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 3.109

110 Table 3.38 Wildfire Population by Level of Concern Category 102 County LOC 1 LOC 2 LOC 3 LOC 4 LOC 5 LOC 6 LOC 7 LOC 8 LOC 9 Alachua 4,886 7,374 50,742 15,994 12,691 13,481 19,272 8,637 10,054 Baker ,614 1,338 1,530 1,814 2,948 1,569 2,586 Bay 2,063 2,363 15,890 4,671 4,746 5,831 7,884 3,166 6,255 Bradford ,144 1,678 2,028 2,702 4,115 1,810 1,504 Brevard 3,620 6,795 44,360 24,565 24,368 26,350 32,533 12,233 14,829 Broward 4,422 6,476 41,481 20,449 20,582 19,812 19,985 7,384 1,848 Calhoun , Charlotte 4,951 5,419 8,438 3,697 4,015 8,700 23,299 14,337 21,463 Citrus 6,253 8,178 42,668 15,864 12,246 13,499 13,804 6,261 6,165 Clay 1,579 5,787 22,352 10,699 11,061 14,001 20,621 11,954 16,487 Collier 3,091 5,181 16,396 7,638 10,341 15,167 29,209 16,353 30,139 Columbia 1,757 2,772 11,890 4,439 4,391 5,493 6,176 2,845 2,934 DeSoto 261 1,135 1, ,121 2,214 5,041 3,213 4,667 Dixie 853 1,225 4, , Duval 8,829 19, ,315 39,167 31,546 40,216 54,781 26,052 42,105 Escambia 7,123 20,608 79,751 8,729 3,980 2, Flagler 612 1,206 4,665 4,192 4,411 6,687 13,505 9,692 15,997 Franklin , Gadsden 1,810 2,245 10,833 2,590 1,910 2,045 2, ,159 Gilchrist 784 1,457 3,109 1, ,214 2,025 1,186 1,410 Glades 493 1,150 1, ,012 1, Gulf 712 1,008 4, Hamilton , Hardee 459 1,756 1, ,239 2,130 3,907 2,041 2,011 Hendry 663 1,311 5,840 2, , Hernando 4,260 7,687 30,168 8,429 7,027 8,004 10,880 5,108 5,309 Highlands 1,587 4,121 8,972 2,736 3,264 5,716 9,120 6,141 14,039 Hillsborough 44,745 42, ,986 68,377 46,886 41,347 34,994 11,424 11,598 Holmes 2,278 1,752 3, Indian River 905 1,288 8,511 3,020 2,908 4,757 10,042 5,079 9,263 Jackson 6,156 5,811 9, Jefferson 1,350 1,196 5,263 1, Lafayette , Lake 6,406 29,128 44,444 20,759 23,408 27,890 34,190 14,220 18,258 Lee 6,937 12,083 41,531 13,208 15,366 21,980 31,469 18,129 28,202 Leon 17,515 13,921 64,768 13,949 9,523 8,410 9,128 2,793 1,877 Levy 2,595 2,946 11,886 3,787 2,947 3,167 5,293 3,447 4,325 Liberty , Madison 1,629 1,419 5,316 1, Manatee 21,138 22,500 86,677 24,644 10,392 5,654 2, Data obtained from the Florida Department of Fire Wildfire Hazard Mitigation Annex, State of Florida Enhanced Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 3.110

111 County LOC 1 LOC 2 LOC 3 LOC 4 LOC 5 LOC 6 LOC 7 LOC 8 LOC 9 Marion 16,134 31,736 66,302 21,151 19,763 22,329 26,331 9,893 12,417 Martin 628 1,299 5,596 2,413 3,350 4,832 6,298 3,113 3,904 Miami-Dade 4,629 10,554 28,182 10,454 12,961 19,201 28,652 9,857 10,589 Monroe 9,779 6,527 1, Nassau 1,701 2,966 24,753 6,294 4,761 4,604 4,379 1,424 1,958 Okaloosa 7,186 8,483 29,965 4,987 3,211 2,701 1, Okeechobee 862 3,608 9,814 1,215 1,167 2,059 3,079 2,912 4,755 Orange Osceola 1,448 7,888 18,634 12,514 14,120 22,244 42,186 20,308 24,486 Palm Beach 6,755 9,765 43,266 29,892 26,287 25,624 26,085 9,048 11,439 Pasco 17,820 12,835 87,994 27,130 17,897 17,739 18,329 7,089 5,907 Pinellas 21,408 9, ,103 20,346 8,235 3,591 2, Polk 11,184 21,917 76,638 35,063 32,824 37,620 63,737 38,010 58,067 Putnam 1,956 2,454 14,059 5,437 5,399 6,776 10,028 5,228 7,006 Santa Rosa 3,248 5,684 48,017 12,177 8,168 6,724 3, Sarasota 14,772 21,942 76,604 15,405 9,260 6,676 7,896 10,027 9,413 Seminole 9,819 13,288 75,561 45,868 36,030 34,509 31,185 10,665 6,633 St. Johns 3,345 5,108 28,502 9,312 8,319 9,118 11,193 4,258 7,398 St. Lucie 1,167 5,585 16,469 5,997 9,645 17,011 20,712 8,347 7,817 Sumter 14,011 11,599 16,623 13,221 2,895 3,326 1, Suwannee 1,669 2,073 7,378 2,786 2,407 2,872 4,113 1,786 2,126 Taylor ,027 1,117 1,151 1,560 1, Union , Volusia 5,970 12,093 70,962 35,398 30,173 34,176 46,681 24,201 32,738 Wakulla 784 1,015 7,862 2,493 2,212 2,619 3,034 1,197 1,823 Walton 5,152 6,296 21,165 2,725 1,964 1,708 1, Washington Property at Risk In Florida, there are almost 1.4 million structures within medium to high wildfire risk areas (LOC 4-9). County-level data shows that a majority of the structures located within medium to high-risk areas are single-family homes. In a county comparison of wildfire risk, the five counties with the highest number of structures within LOC 7-9 are Polk, Orange, Duval, Volusia, and Osceola Counties. These counties have the highest number of persons as well as structures at high risk from wildfire due to residential properties being disproportionally represented in high-risk wildfire areas compared to other structure types. These five counties have 214,575 structures within LOC 7-9. The counties with the highest percent of their countywide building stock at high risk from wildfire are: Desoto (39.0 percent), Flagler (37.6 percent), Osceola (31.0 percent), Charlotte (29.6 percent), and Baker (29.2 percent). State of Florida Enhanced Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 3.111

112 There is over $298 billion in property value with a medium to high risk from wildfire. The estimates of property value include structure value as assessed by each county, but do not include the value of agriculture or silviculture that may be present on the property. In a county comparison of wildfire risk, the five counties with the highest property values within LOC 7-9 are Orange, Duval, Collier, Polk, and Osceola Counties. Together these counties have over $45 billion in property at high risk from wildfire. The counties with the highest percent of their countywide property value at high risk from wildfire are: Flagler (30.6 percent), Osceola (28.0 percent), Highlands (25.6 percent), Charlotte (25.6 percent), and Baker (25.3 percent). Appendix C: Risk Assessment Tables contains detailed information organized by level of concern and for the type and number of structures by county that are at risk. VIII. Assessing Vulnerability of State Facilities A vulnerability analysis for wildfires was conducted for the 2010 plan update. In this section, the state s vulnerability to wildfires was analyzed, identifying the specific counties within the state that were perceived to be vulnerable to the effects of wildfires and assessing their individual levels of vulnerability. The following outlines the 2010 process, however, the state facility portion was not updated for 2013 because the levels of concern overlay for the state facility data was not available. Using the state facility database provided by the DFS, the SHMPAT identified which facilities lay within the wildfire LOC (LOC zones 1 9). Summarizing the facilities by total counts and insured values within the zones provided estimates of dollar vulnerability by county. The wildfire maps illustrate the counties that were identified as vulnerable to the effects of wildfires and their overall levels of vulnerability. Specific totals of the number of state facilities and their vulnerability within each county can be found in the following tables. Detailed financial information pertaining to the estimated losses of state facilities by county can also be found in Appendix C: Risk Assessment Tables. All regions of Florida are vulnerable to the effects of wildfires; however, there are specific areas of Florida that are perceived to have more vulnerability than others. It is acknowledged that this range of risk to wildfires can change dramatically over time based on the occurrence of long-term climatic events such as droughts. All parts of Florida are understood to be vulnerable to the effects of wildfires, and the central and southern parts of Florida are the most vulnerable. These findings are based primarily on the facts of Florida s current multi-year long drought. The drought has affected all areas differently depending on their ecological surroundings, but what is consistent is the fact that the drought has caused a dramatic reduction in water levels and has dried out forests and timberland to dangerous levels, which makes them highly vulnerable to a wildfire event. State of Florida Enhanced Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 3.112

113 IX. Estimating Potential Losses by Jurisdiction During the 2013 plan update process, the SHMPAT researched the potential losses related to wildfires and collected data to assist with this estimation. The updated Florida Forest Service Wildfire Mitigation Annex provides county level data by levels of concern that helped to outline the number of structures potentially affected. Wildfire Loss Estimation Historical evidence shows that most of the state is vulnerable to wildfires. Table 3.39 provides annualized loss estimates of residential buildings, commercial buildings, medical buildings, educational buildings, and governmental buildings per county from wildfires. County Total Value of Structures ($Millions) Table 3.39 Wildfire Structures Summary 103 Estimated Annualized County Loss ($Thousands) Total Value of Structures ($Millions) Estimated Annualized Loss ($Thousands) Alachua 9, Lee 19, Baker 1, Leon 11, Bay 6, Levy 3, Bradford 1, Liberty Brevard 14, Madison Broward 19, Manatee 13, Calhoun Marion 18, Charlotte 8, Martin 7, Citrus 8, Miami-Dade 17, Clay 7, Monroe 5, Collier 21, Nassau 4, Columbia 2, Okaloosa 5, DeSoto 1, Okeechobee 1, Dixie 1, Orange 53,301 1,405 Duval 31, Osceola 17, Escambia 6, Palm Beach 26, Flagler 5, Pasco 15, Franklin 1, Pinellas 17, Gadsden 1, Polk 18, Gilchrist 1, Putnam 3, Glades 2, Santa Rosa 6, Gulf 1, Sarasota 20, Hamilton Seminole 19, Data obtained from the Florida Department of Fire Wildfire Hazard Mitigation Annex, 2011 State of Florida Enhanced Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 3.113

114 County Total Value of Structures ($Millions) Estimated Annualized Loss ($Thousands) County Total Value of Structures ($Millions) Estimated Annualized Loss ($Thousands) Hardee 1, St. Johns 11, Hendry 2, St. Lucie 6, Hernando 6, Sumter 5, Highlands 3, Suwannee 1, Hillsborough 41, Taylor Holmes Union Indian River 6, Volusia 18, Jackson 1, Wakulla 1, Jefferson 1,095 8 Walton 6, Lafayette Washington 1,044 9 Lake 13, National Climatic Data Center Wildfire Loss Estimation Data from the NCDC provides details about the historical wildfires in the state. For future revisions, it is the intent of the risk assessment sub-group to use loss information from the Florida Forest Service. Table 3.40 shows the quantity of wildfires and the associated annualized losses that have occurred in Florida from October 2006 to July Previous years data is not currently available from the database. Table 3.40 Historical Wildfire Summary 104 Annualized Property Loss Annualized Crop Loss NCDC Reports Average per Year ($Millions) ($Millions) Based on this historical data, the average estimated loss per wildfire is approximately $289,247. The following statistics were noted by the SHMPAT to qualify this estimated loss: The event with the highest damage was May 2008, in Brevard County with $16 million in damages. Columbia County, in May 2007, also had an event worth $10.6 million in damages. The SHMPAT determined that worst-case loss estimates for wildfires could reach into the hundreds of millions of dollars. In addition, the sample size, given the number of wildfires without damages would not yield a valid estimate State of Florida Enhanced Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 3.114

115 X. Estimating Potential Losses of State Facilities The SHMPAT did not conduct loss estimations on wildfires in the original plan development process. This wildfire-specific estimation was added and updated for the 2010 plan update. Data was not available for the updated levels of concern to overlay with the new state facility data for Table 3.41 shows the range of values for facilities within areas of concern. Appendix C: Risk Assessment Tables contains a detailed breakdown for each type of facility per LOC by county and the associated value. County Value of Facilities ($Millions) Table 3.41 Wildfire Facilities Summary 105 Estimated Annualized County Facility Losses ($Thousands) Value of Facilities ($Millions) Estimated Annualized Facility Losses ($Thousands) Alachua 3, Liberty Bay Manatee Brevard Marion Broward Martin Charlotte Miami-Dade 1, Citrus Monroe Clay Nassau Collier Okaloosa Desoto Orange 1, Dixie Osceola Duval Palm Beach Escambia Pasco Flagler Pinellas Franklin Putnam Gilchrist Santa Rosa Glades Sarasota Gulf Seminole Hendry St Johns Hernando St Lucie Hillsborough Taylor Indian River Volusia Lafayette Wakulla Lee Walton Leon Washington Levy Data obtained from the Florida Forest Service Wildfire Hazard Mitigation Annex, 2011 State of Florida Enhanced Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 3.115

116 3.3.5 Drought Profile I. Drought Description and Background Information In the most general sense, drought originates from a deficiency of precipitation over an extended period of time, resulting in a water shortage for some activity, group, or environmental sector. Drought should be considered relative to some long-term average condition of balance between precipitation and evapotranspiration (i.e., evaporation + transpiration) in a particular area, a condition often perceived as normal. It is also related to the timing (i.e., principal season of occurrence, delays in the start of the rainy season, occurrence of rains in relation to principal crop growth stages) and the effectiveness (i.e., rainfall intensity, number of rainfall events) of the rains. Other climatic factors such as high temperature, high wind, and low relative humidity are often associated with it in many regions of the world and can significantly intensify its severity. When drought begins, the agricultural sector is usually the first to be impacted because of its heavy dependence on stored soil water. Those who rely on surface water (i.e., reservoirs and lakes) and subsurface water (i.e., ground water), for example, are usually the last to be affected. A short-term drought that persists for three to six months may have little impact on these sectors, depending on the characteristics of the hydrologic system and water use requirements. Drought Indexes and Measurements In 1965, W.C. Palmer developed an index to measure the departure of the moisture supply. 106 Palmer based his index on the supply-and-demand concept of the water balance equation, taking into account more than just the precipitation deficit at specific locations. The objective of the Palmer Drought Severity Index (PDSI), shown in Table 3.42, was to provide measurements of moisture conditions that were standardized so that comparisons using the index could be made between locations and between months. Table 3.42 Palmer Drought Severity Index 107 Palmer Classifications 4.0 or more Extremely wet -0.5 to Incipient dry spell 3.0 to 3.99 Very wet -1.0 to Mild drought 2.0 to 2.99 Moderately wet -2.0 to Moderate drought 1.0 to 1.99 Slightly wet -3.0 to Severe drought 0.5 to 0.99 Incipient wet spell -4.0 or less Extreme drought 0.49 to Near normal 106 W.C. Palmer, Palmer Drought Severity Index (PDSI). 107 W.C. Palmer, Palmer Drought Severity Index (PDSI). State of Florida Enhanced Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 3.116

117 The PDSI is most effective in determining long-term drought, a matter of several months, and is not as reliable with short-term forecasts, a matter of weeks. It uses a 0 as normal, and drought is shown in terms of minus numbers; for example, minus 2 is moderate drought, minus 3 is severe drought, and minus 4 is extreme drought. The advantage of the PDSI is that it is standardized to local climate, so it can be applied to any part of the country to demonstrate relative drought or rainfall conditions. The Keetch-Byram Drought Index (KBDI) is a continuous reference scale for estimating the dryness of the soil and duff layers. The index increases for each day without rain (the amount of increase depends on the daily high temperature) and decreases when it rains. The scale ranges from 0 (no moisture deficit) to 800. The range of the index is determined by assuming that there are 8 inches of moisture in saturated soil that is readily available to the vegetation. For different soil types, the depth of soil required to hold 8 inches of moisture varies (loam 30 inches, clay 25 inches, and sand 80 inches). A prolonged drought (high KBDI) influences fire intensity largely because more fuel is available for combustion (i.e., fuels have a lower moisture content). In addition, the drying of organic material in the soil can lead to increased difficulty in fire suppression. State of Florida Enhanced Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 3.117

118 Figure 3.28 shows the most recent KDBI levels for Florida. 108 Figure 3.28 Keetch-Byram Drought Index 109 II. Geographic Areas Affected by Drought The State of Florida experiences cyclical drought on a regular basis. Currently, there are visible long-term trends toward a drier climate and warmer weather. Analyzing past events as well as the current drought conditions has proven that the drought conditions and the severity of drought conditions has been variable over the years, affecting the east, north, south, and central regions randomly and somewhat equally State of Florida Enhanced Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 3.118

119 III. Historical Occurrences for Drought Bordered by two large bodies of water, Florida has the longest coastline in the continental United States, the second largest lake in the nation that lies entirely within the United States 110 Lake Okeechobee and 50,000 miles of rivers, streams, and waterways. Even as recently as from , Florida experienced a destructive drought where farm crops were ruined, forest fires burned, and lake levels reached an all-time low. Additionally, in rainfall deficits were the largest observed since the mid-1950s. The following summation in Table 3.43 illustrates the droughts that have affected the State of Florida, as well as its neighboring regions. From 1950 to May 2009, there were 33 recorded instances of drought in Florida. Four major hydrologic droughts have affected Florida. Areas of the state most severely affected by these droughts were the Panhandle and South-Central peninsula from ; the entire state from and again from ; and the peninsula from Table 3.43 Historical Occurrences of Drought 111 Date Information The most extreme drought on record occurred during when runoff was 8 inches below normal, causing extensive loss of crops and timber The drought of was the result of rainfall deficiencies ranging from inches, causing water levels at Lake Okeechobee to reach the lowest levels ever recorded. May 2001 A 13-month period of below normal rainfall ended on May 20, 2001, with the beginning of the rainy season. Rainfall amounts since May 2000 over interior and southwest portions of south Florida and over all of Palm Beach County averaged about 30 percent below normal. Lake Okeechobee fell to a historic low level of 9.1 feet. Sugar cane and other crops were adversely impacted, as well as marine life around Lake Okeechobee. Long Term Lower than normal precipitation caused a severe long-term statewide drought in Drought Florida lasting from Based on precipitation and stream flow records dating to the early 1900s, the drought was one of the worst ever to affect the state. In terms of severity, this drought was comparable to the drought of in duration and had record-setting low flows in several basins. The drought was particularly severe over the 5-year period in the northwest, northeast, and southwest regions of Florida, where rainfall deficits ranged from 9 10 inches below normal (southwest Florida) to inches below normal (northwest Florida). Within these regions, the drought caused record-low stream flows in several river basins, increased freshwater withdrawals, and created hazardous conditions ripe for wildfires, sinkhole development, and even the draining of lakes. South Florida was affected primarily in 2001, when the region experienced belowaverage stream flow conditions; however, cumulative rainfall in south Florida never fell below the 30-year normal. Among the drought measures taken in 2001: 110 U.S. Corps of Engineers publication, Lake Okeechobee & the Herbert Hoover Dike, Various sources including State of Florida Enhanced Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 3.119

120 Date Information Three of Florida s five water management districts imposed mandatory cutbacks, strictly limiting water use. Several municipalities hiked water-sewer rates, meaning even customers who cut back were paying more. Restaurants in South Florida were ordered to stop serving water, except to diners who asked Most portions of South Florida were in the grips of a one in 25-year drought as they approached the typical 3 4 month dry season. The Lake Okeechobee water level dropped at a rate of about 0.5 feet per month and is currently at 11.5 feet, which is three feet below its historical average for this time of year and 2.5 feet from the record low of 8.97 feet on May 24, Mandatory phase one restrictions (15 percent cutback) were in force for the Lake Okeechobee Service Area, as well as the Northern Indian Prairie Basin. These areas include the Everglades Agricultural Area and portions of Hendry, Glades, Lee, Okeechobee, Palm Beach, and Martin counties. Also included are agricultural areas south of Lake Istopoka in Highlands County. A formal water shortage warning (voluntary reductions) is also in place for the Lower East Coast Service Area A drought began in the late winter months and continued into early and mid-may over South Florida. Severe drought (D2) conditions in southeast Florida were triggered by the driest winter on record in many locations. Winter season rainfall at the Miami International Airport was.74 inches, making it the driest winter on record. Also, rainfall at Fort Lauderdale was.39 inches, which was the driest on record. Additionally, winter season rainfall at West Palm Beach was 2.01 inches, which was the second driest on record. The level of Lake Okeechobee fell from feet to feet by the end of March. The KDBI reached extreme levels across most of South Florida indicating high fire danger values. This resulted in several small brush fires Severe drought conditions (D2) developed across Jackson and Holmes counties on September 14 and continued into October. Severe drought conditions (D3) developed on October 19 and continued into November. Severe drought conditions (D2) developed in Washington and Northern Walton counties on October 5. Extreme drought conditions (D3) developed in Washington and northern Walton counties on October 19 and continued into November. Severe drought conditions (D2) persisted through all of December across portions of northern Florida and the Big Bend Severe drought conditions (D2) persisted through all of January and into February across portions of northern Florida and the Big Bend. Continued dry weather in January, coupled with long-term dryness going back to the previous summer, led to the expansion of severe drought conditions over South Florida. Rainfall deficits in October were in the 3 6 inch range with the level of Lake Okeechobee remaining steady at about 12.5 feet, which is 2.2 feet below normal. State of Florida Enhanced Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 3.120

121 IV. Probability of Future Drought Events As of April 2012, drought conditions have improved over South Florida with a lowpressure system moving through that brought rainfall amounts between 1 3 inches. 112 Based on the previous occurrences of drought conditions in the state, the probability of future drought events occurring over the long term with some frequency remains high. As the state continues to develop with higher populations, higher water demands, and more demands related to agriculture and livestock, these drought conditions and drier trends may begin to have a profound impact on the state and its residents. V. Drought Impact Analysis Drought will negatively affect the State of Florida with a variety of impacts: Drought is often associated with periods of long and intense heat. Drought usually does not affect humans directly, but extreme heat can cause injury and even death, particularly with children, elderly citizens, and other special needs populations. Injuries and potential deaths are most likely to impact rural, poor areas that lack air conditioning and immediate medical care. The largest impact of prolonged drought is the financial impact to farmers with crops and livestock. Florida has a significant agriculture industry, and a serious drought would damage or possibly destroy annual crops and limit the number of livestock that could be properly cared for. Drought and extreme heat have no real effect on houses, facilities, or state infrastructure. Rationing water supplies would most likely be the worst-case scenario impact for drought. Prolonged drought over a number of years could have long-term environmental impacts on the area, including species endangerment and necessary changes to the local agricultural makeup. There is an increased sinkhole formation risk under drought conditions Agricultural Vulnerability to Drought The primary vulnerability to drought is the robust agricultural sector of the state. Both short-term drought during critical times in the growth cycle and long-term drought over many years affect the farmers. The following statistics provide an idea of the magnitude of this industry and the profound economic impact that this hazard could have on the state Drought Information Station. National Weather Service Overview of Florida Agriculture. Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services State of Florida Enhanced Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 3.121

122 As of June 2012, Florida ranked: First in the U.S. in the cash receipts for oranges, grapefruit, fresh snap peas, sweet corn, watermelons, fresh cucumbers, squash, and sugar cane. Second in the production of greenhouse and nursery products. Eleventh in beef cows. Seventh in overall agricultural exports, at $3.1 billion. According to the latest information available from the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services in 2010, in terms of total value of production, Florida accounted for: percent of the total U.S. value for oranges ($1.2 billion) 72 percent of the total U.S. value for grapefruit ($207 million) 44 percent of the total U.S. value for snap beans ($135 million) 22 percent of the total U.S. value for tangerines ($61 million) 52 percent of the total U.S. value for sugarcane for sugar and seed ($551 million) 45 percent of the total U.S. value for fresh market tomatoes ($631 million) 46 percent of the total U.S. value for bell peppers ($296 million) 25 percent of the total U.S. value for fresh market cucumbers ($48 million) 23 percent of the total U.S. value for watermelons ($113 million) Florida had 47,500 commercial farms in 2010, 115 using a total of 9.25 million acres. There were 5,950 farms with sales exceeding $100,000. The average farm size was less than 250 acres. The number of farms in Florida has remained stable over the past 10 years. 116 VI LMS Integration The SHMPAT focused on producing a statewide vulnerability analysis based on estimates provided by the LMS plans. Risk assessment information from the LMS plans is current as of May 1, Based on the LMS plans, Figure 3.29 displays the jurisdictional rankings for the drought hazard. Not all counties have identified drought as one of their hazards. High-risk Jurisdictions 4 Medium-high risk Jurisdictions 12 Medium-risk Jurisdictions 33 Low-risk Jurisdictions This is the most recent update from the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services State of Florida Enhanced Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 3.122

123 Figure 3.29 Drought Hazard Rankings by County VII. Drought Hazard Vulnerability Analysis by Jurisdiction During the 2013 plan update process, the SHMPAT researched the overall vulnerability to drought and collected data to assist with the estimation of potential losses. The following section provides details for this hazard. Availability of water during drought conditions is controlled largely by the topography, geology, hydrogeology, and hydrology of an area. Because these factors vary considerably by physiographic region in Florida, drought vulnerability can be generally assessed by physiographic region. Local conditions, such as the availability of a large impoundment for water storage, may affect drought vulnerability on a local scale. Florida has been involved in a cyclical drought, and early in 2007, very dry conditions led to large fires across the northern part of the state. As of this revision, based on the wet climatology of Florida, drought improvement is likely State of Florida Enhanced Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 3.123

124 The drought vulnerability was reviewed as a part of the 2013 plan revision. The entire state continues to be vulnerable to cyclical drought, with the northern portion having a higher overall risk factor. The vulnerability to drought is different from the other vulnerabilities considered in this plan since the majority of the built environment is not vulnerable to this hazard. VIII. Assessing Vulnerability of State Facilities A vulnerability analysis on drought was not conducted in 2004; however, one was completed during the 2007, 2010, and 2013 plan update and revision process. Although facilities themselves are not vulnerable to drought, the areas or regions that the facilities are located in may be susceptible to drought. The efficiency at which a building operates may be affected (i.e., low water pressure) if the building is in a drought-stricken area. To complete the analysis, the specific counties within the state that were perceived to be vulnerable to the effects of drought and their individual levels of vulnerability were first identified. Droughts are common in the State of Florida and can occur in virtually any region and last for any length of time. Therefore, all counties are perceived to be vulnerable to the effects of drought, a drought event at one time, or another over the long-term. Because of this fact, the current drought events within Florida were reviewed and their effects modeled on the Long- Term Indicators currently provided by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association. The current existing long-term forecast for drought conditions within the State of Florida was used to model the state s vulnerability to droughts. The analysis researched the current two-year long drought conditions within Florida as well as the long-term indicator to determine the state s overall vulnerability. However, droughts, like winter storms and other similar hazards that do not cause direct structural damage to facilities, do not pose a severe risk to state facilities. Currently, the most extreme vulnerable risk areas of Florida to drought are the northern portion of the state and the Panhandle. The extreme risk vulnerable areas are the southern counties from Orlando south. IX. Estimating Potential Losses by Jurisdiction The 2004 original plan did not perform a loss estimate on a statewide level for drought. During the 2013 plan update process, the SHMPAT researched the potential losses related to drought and extreme heat and collected data to assist with this estimation. There were no significant changes since the 2010 plan update. National Climatic Data Center Drought Loss Estimation Data from the NCDC provides details about the historical droughts in the state. While 572 events are listed between October 2006 and April 2012, only two events have reported State of Florida Enhanced Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 3.124

125 damages through the NCDC. One of these events pre-dates the currently available information from the NCDC. Of these two events, there is a large disparity in the crop damage statistics as seen here: May 1, 2001: Event reported $100 million in crop damages December 18, 2006: Event reported $32,000 in crop damages Based on this historical data, the average estimated loss for each drought is approximately $174,576. The SHMPAT determined that worst-case loss estimates for drought could easily reach into the hundreds of millions of dollars. However, many drought events are much less severe. SHMPAT Drought Research Due to the lack of data from the NCDC, the SHMPAT conducted some additional research during the 2010 and 2013 plan update process in order to further enhance the ability to estimate losses from drought. It recognized the following items as potential impacts from drought that would involve losses: The agricultural sector is the most at risk from this hazard, with potential significant economic loss due to farming, nurseries, and other water-dependent businesses. Lack of water is likely to result in crop losses, particularly during the time of year when evapotranspiration losses are highest and crop needs are the most intense. Livestock suffer in drought, and their related pasturelands are affected. The risks of water shortage in Florida include increased potential of saltwater intrusion into coastal well fields. Drought increases the likelihood of wildland fires and a related lack of water for fire protection. Lowered water levels in canals and surface waters could hamper the ability to fight fires in rural areas. Potential losses also are due to tourism impacts and the related economic factor. The SHMPAT developed exposure amounts as an indicator of the potential losses that would occur if a drought damaged agricultural commodities. Table 3.44 lists these commodities. Table 3.44 Drought Commodities Summary 118 Type of Commodity Value of Receipts ($Thousands) Percent of U.S. value Greenhouse/nursery 1,931, Oranges 1,340, Tomatoes 622, Dairy products 464, Cane for sugar 442, Total 7,978, State of Florida Enhanced Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 3.125

126 During the 2010 and 2013 update process, the SHMPAT noted the lack of sufficient data to fully estimate losses for drought. It recognized that some droughts are temporary and localized, with minimal or no subsequent losses, and that some have been statewide and prolonged, with extreme financial impact to the state. To collect better data for improved loss estimations during the next plan revision cycle, the team has agreed to work closely with these agencies involved in the state s Drought Action Plan: Department of Environmental Protection Division of Emergency Management Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services State Water Management Districts X. Estimating Potential Losses of State Facilities The SHMPAT did not conduct loss estimations on drought because the facilities themselves are not vulnerable to drought Extreme Heat Profile I. Extreme Heat Description and Background Information Extreme heat is defined as extended period of time where the temperature and relative humidity combine for a dangerous heat index. 119 Extreme heat can occur throughout the state but typically occurs in the summer between the months of June and September.This hazard is focused on the affects to the human population, while drought focuses more in agricultural interests. Extreme heat can ultimately cause death. Most heat disorders occur because the victim has been overexposed to heat or has over-exercised for his or her age and physical condition. Older adults, young children, and those who are sick or overweight are more likely to succumb to extreme heat. II. Historical Occurrences of Extreme Heat Florida has always been known for its high humidity and heat, which combine to affect its population. According to the NCDC, there have been 34 reported extreme heat occurrences in Florida since State of Florida Enhanced Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 3.126

127 On average, 175 people die per year from heat-related illnesses throughout the United States. From , extreme heat killed, on average, more people than flooding, hurricanes, tornadoes, and lightning combined. 120 Table 3.45 highlights the major historical occurrences. Date June 1998 July 2000 Table 3.45 Historical Occurrences of Extreme Heat Information In June 1998, a deep high-pressure ridge persisted across the Gulf of Mexico and Florida throughout most of June and into early July, resulting in several long stretches of record-breaking high temperatures and claiming one life. Melbourne had 22 days, Orlando had 12 days, and Daytona Beach had 13 days where high temperature records were either tied or broken. Melbourne had four 100 degree or greater days, Orlando had three, and Daytona Beach had nine. July 2000 was the hottest month ever recorded in northwest Florida. The average temperature in Pensacola for the month was 85.6 degrees, breaking the old record of 85.4 degrees. The temperature also reached 100 degrees or higher seven days during the month. The highest temperature during the month at the Pensacola airport was 103 degrees. Milton had five days of 100 degrees or higher, with the highest being 102 degrees. Niceville had six days of 100 degrees or higher during the month, with the highest temperature of 103 degrees. III. Probability of Future Extreme Heat Events The NCDC compares each state s temperature over the month, 3 months, 6 months, and year. 121 The June 2012 report showed that Florida is experiencing a continuing trend toward temperatures that are milder to near normal. This is a drastic change from the longer averages that put the state in above to much above normal ranges. Tropical Storm Debby provided some affect to the climate data. The outlook for the short-term remainder of 2012 includes average temperatures driven by the seasonal change and a maturing El Niño. IV LMS Integration The SHMPAT focused on producing a statewide vulnerability analysis based on estimates provided by the LMS plans. The 67 multi-jurisdictional LMS plans provided a solid baseline for the overall state vulnerability analysis. Risk assessment information from the LMS plans is current as of May 1, State of Florida Enhanced Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 3.127

128 Based on the LMS plans in the State of Florida, Figure 3.30 displays the jurisdictional rankings for the extreme heat hazard. Not all counties have identified extreme heat as one of their hazards. High-risk Jurisdictions 5 Medium-high risk Jurisdictions 5 Medium-risk Jurisdictions 15 Low-risk Jurisdictions 16 Figure 3.30 Extreme Heat Hazard Rankings by County V. Extreme Heat Hazard Vulnerability Analysis by Jurisdiction The State of Florida experiences extreme heat in all regions. Currently, there are visible long-term trends toward a drier climate and warmer weather. Analyzing past events as well as the current conditions has proven that the extreme heat conditions have been somewhat variable over the years; however, the southern counties of the state do tend to exhibit more tendencies to extreme heat. State of Florida Enhanced Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 3.128

129 VI. Assessing Vulnerability of State Facilities A vulnerability analysis on extreme heat was not conducted in 2004; however, in conjunction with drought, one was completed during the 2007 and 2010 plan update and revision process. In the 2013 update, extreme heat was separated from drought. Although facilities themselves are not vulnerable to extreme heat, the areas or regions that the facilities are located in may be susceptible to extreme heat. The efficiency at which a building operates may be affected (i.e. added load to building cooling systems) if the building is in an area vulnerable to extreme heat. To complete the analysis, the specific counties within the state that were perceived to be vulnerable to the effects of drought and their individual levels of vulnerability were first identified. Extreme heat is common in the State of Florida and can occur in virtually any region of the state and last for any length of time. Therefore, all counties are perceived to be vulnerable to the effects of extreme heat at one time or another over the long-term. The long-term temperature outlook from the NWS Climate Prediction Center indicates that El Niño conditions will increase in the coming months leading to lower than average temperatures. However, trends of higher than average temperatures counter the emerging El Niño for equal changes of above, near, or below normal temperatures. 122 VII. Estimating Potential Losses by Jurisdiction The previous version of the plan grouped extreme heat and drought together. The SHMPAT did not conduct loss estimations by jurisdiction on extreme heat and drought in 2004 during the original plan development process. For extreme heat, the 2013 plan update does not include extreme heat-specific estimation by jurisdiction because structures are not vulnerable to extreme heat. VIII. Estimating Potential Losses of State Facilities The SHMPAT did not conduct loss estimations on extreme heat for the 2013 plan because the facilities themselves are not vulnerable to extreme heat State of Florida Enhanced Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 3.129

130 3.3.7 Winter Storms and Freezes Profile I. Winter Storms and Freezes Description and Background Information Severe winter weather includes extreme cold, snowfall, ice storms, winter storms, and/or strong winds, and affects every state in the continental United States. Areas where such weather is uncommon, such as Florida, are typically affected more by severe winter weather than regions that experience this weather more frequently. As a hazardous winter weather phenomena, the NWS defines snowfall as a steady fall of snow for several hours or more. Heavy snow is defined as either a snowfall accumulating to 4 inches in depth in 12 hours or less, or snowfall accumulation to 6 inches or more in depth in 24 hours or less. In states such as Florida, where lesser accumulations can cause significant impacts, lower thresholds are typically used to define significant snows. However, due to the overall levels of preparedness, a relatively small event in Florida can have a much more significant impact than a blizzard in the northeast where they are fully prepared for these conditions. Sleet is defined as pellets of ice composed of frozen or mostly frozen raindrops or refrozen partially melted snowflakes. Heavy sleet is a relatively rare event defined as the accumulation of ice pellets covering the ground to a depth of 0.5 inch or more. Ice accumulations are usually accumulations of 0.25 inches or greater across the country; however, amounts as little as 0.1 inch in Florida have significant impact on transportation, special needs populations, and agriculture and livestock throughout the state. Winter storm formation requires below-freezing temperatures, moisture, and lift to raise the moist air to form the clouds and cause precipitation. Lift is commonly provided by warm air colliding with cold air along a weather front. These storms move easterly or northeasterly and use both the southward plunge of cold air from Canada and the northward flow of moisture from the Gulf of Mexico to produce ice, snow, and sometimes blizzard conditions. These fronts may push deep into the interior regions, sometimes as far south as Florida. Between 1992 and 2011, an average of 23 deaths per year were attributed to severe winter storms nationally, with 17 occurring during the winter of The storm of 1993, considered to be among the worst non-tropical weather events in the United States, killed at least 79 people, injured more than 600, and caused more than $2 billion in property damage across parts of 20 states. Florida was affected by this winter storm, and it was a FEMA-declared event for tornadoes, flooding, high winds, tides, and freezing. Accumulations of ice from ice storms or heavy snow can damage trees, electrical wires, telephone poles and lines, and communication towers. Communications and power are often disrupted while utility companies work to repair the damage State of Florida Enhanced Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 3.130

131 Prolonged exposure to the cold can cause frostbite or hypothermia and become life threatening. Infants and elderly people are most at risk. In areas unaccustomed to winter weather, near freezing temperatures are considered "extreme cold." During unexpected cold periods in Florida, there are often issues with propane gas supplies, and electrical and natural gas systems are pushed to their limits to meet the record demands. Also, many residents of Florida have inadequate heating systems and turn to alternatives such as space heaters and wood fires that increase the likelihood of accidental house fires. II. Geographic Areas Affected by Winter Storms and Freezes The significant economic impact of freezing on the citrus industry drives much of the planning and analysis related to winter weather in the state. Given its southern location and tropical weather, Florida experiences a lower overall rate of winter storms and freezes. The NCDC maintains freeze and frost data based on 86 stations located throughout the State of Florida. Of those 86 stations, only 18 of them maintain a 5 percent probability, or better, of a freeze or frost in the yearly period. Those stations all fall in the upper half of the state, starting in Chiefland, cutting through Gainesville, and ending just south of Jacksonville. 124 III. Historical Occurrences of Winter Storms and Freezes The following information updates the previous plan section. Of the 63 FEMA-declared events in Florida, there have been seven events that involved severe winter weather. These events all related to freezing and to a large degree focused on the overall impact to the Florida economy. These are the major disaster declarations as designated by the FEMA: March 15, 1971 January 31, 1977 March 29, 1984 March 18, 1985 January 15, 1990 March 13, 1993 February 6, 2001 The NCDC database for storm events only reports seven combined snow and ice events in Florida since 1950, with four of the entries from the same storm. The SHMPAT recognized the data limitations from this source; however, the available events are listed in Table State of Florida Enhanced Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 3.131

132 Date January 6, 1999 December 20, 2000 December 30, 2000 January 1, 2001 Table 3.46 Historical Severe Winter Storms Information Temperatures fell below freezing for up to 12 hours in the winter crop producing counties of Polk, Highlands, Hardee, DeSoto, Hillsborough, and Manatee, causing $200,000 in property damage and $475,000 in crop damage to tomato, squash, and strawberry crops. Also, minimum temperatures in the farming areas of Collier County reached 27 to 32 degrees for about four hours, causing approximately $100,000 in widely scattered damage to vegetable crops. Freezing temperatures were observed over a large portion of West Central Florida during the predawn through late morning hours, causing an estimated $1 million in crop damage. Freezing temperatures in Citrus County damaged an estimated one hundred acres of the local citrus crop. In Polk, Hillsborough, Hardee, and Highlands Counties, low temperatures dropped into the upper 20s and lower 30s and remained below freezing for durations of two to four hours. Widespread freezing temperatures were observed across most of West Central and Southwest Florida during the late evening of December 30 through the mid-morning hours of December 31 st, 2000, causing $4.5 million in crop damage. In Manatee and Hillsborough Counties, freezing temperatures may have caused an estimated $2 million worth of damage to the tropical fish industry. In eastern Charlotte, eastern Lee, and northern Pinellas Counties, temperatures dropped into the lower 30s and remained below freezing for periods of two to five hours. The freeze caused an estimated 25 to 50 percent damage to tomato, pepper, and squash crops in Lee and Charlotte Counties. Temperatures fell into the mid-20s over Glades, Hendry, eastern Collier, and western portions of Palm Beach and Broward Counties and fell to 32 degrees in the farming areas of Southern Miami-Dade County. Approximately $2 million in damage to vegetable crops occurred in Hendry and Glades Counties. The second and coldest night of a two-night freeze in south Florida saw minimum air temperatures ranging from 25 to 30 degrees over interior sections of the peninsula. In the metropolitan areas of Miami-Dade, Broward, and Palm Beach Counties, temperatures were in the middle 30s over the western suburbs. An estimated $6 million in crop damage included losses to corn and newly planted sugar cane in Palm Beach County, and to certain vegetables in Hendry and Eastern Collier Counties. An additional $5.1 million in crop damage was caused by widespread freezing temperatures across most of West Central and Southwest Florida. In Lee County, the freeze caused nearly $3 million in damage to the squash and cucumber crop. In Charlotte County, the freeze caused at least $100,000 in damage to the pepper crop. State of Florida Enhanced Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 3.132

133 Date January 5, 2001 January 10, 2001 February 6, 2001 December 2001 January 2002 Information A freeze occurred throughout the interior sections of South Florida, causing an estimated $78 million in damage to certain crops. Hardest hit were certain vegetable crops, with 75 percent losses in Hendry and eastern Collier Counties and 30 percent losses in the farming areas of Miami- Dade County. Other crops that were damaged included newly planted sugar cane, ornamentals, and tropical fruits. Widespread freezing temperatures were also observed across most of West Central and Southwest Florida during the pre-dawn and mid-morning hours, causing $6.9 million in crop damage. In Levy, Sumter, Citrus, Hernando, and Pasco Counties, low temperatures dropped into the upper teens and lower 20s with durations below freezing for up to nine hours. In Hillsborough, Polk, Hardee, DeSoto, and Highlands Counties, low temperatures ranged from the low to middle 20s with durations below freezing for up to eight hours. The freeze caused nearly $4 million worth of damage to the tropical fish crop in Hillsborough County. In Lee County, the freeze caused nearly $2.6 million worth of damage to the squash and cucumber crops. In Charlotte County, the freeze caused nearly $250,000 in damage to the pepper crop. Freezing temperatures were observed over most of West Central and parts of Southwest Florida during the pre-dawn through mid-morning hours. In Levy, Sumter, and Citrus Counties, low temperatures dropped into the middle teens to the lower 20s with durations below freezing for up to nine hours. In mainly inland Hernando, Pasco, Hillsborough, Manatee, and western Polk Counties, low temperatures dropped into lower to middle 20s with durations below freezing for up to seven hours. In Hillsborough County, the freeze caused nearly $4 million worth of damage to the tropical fish industry. FEMA declaration for unemployment compensation or Disaster Unemployment Assistance (DUA) benefits was issued due to the significant winter weather from December 2000 through January Freezing temperatures occurred in portions of West Central Florida on several occasions between December and early March. However, hard freezes occurred only across the Nature Coast, an area more accustomed to colder winter nights. The freezes, which occurred both early and late, produced only minor damage to tender vegetation. This winter weather was long lasting and geographically distributed; however, it did not cause significant damages. State of Florida Enhanced Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 3.133

134 Date January 23 25, 2003 February 2010 Information A strong cold front ushered in cold temperatures and gusty northwest winds into the Florida peninsula. Wind chill temperatures ranged from 10 to 15 degrees in Bronson, around 20 degrees in Tampa and Lakeland, to 20 to 25 degrees in Fort Myers. Overnight low temperatures ranged from near 20 degrees in the inland counties north to the upper 20s in the inland counties south, to the lower 30s along the coast near Fort Myers. A hard freeze (temperatures of 27 degrees or less for three or more hours) reached south into northeast Hillsborough and northern Polk Counties. Citrus crops fared well because the freeze did not last long enough, but strawberries took a $4.5 million loss and tropical fish a $4 million loss. Early morning low temperatures on January 24 dropped well below freezing across east central Florida. Temperatures ranged from 24 degrees in Leesburg and 25 degrees in Daytona Beach to 29 degrees in Melbourne and 27 degrees in Orlando. To the south, Ft. Pierce and Vero Beach reported lows near 30 degrees. Later that morning, winds shifted off the ocean, producing a few snowflakes in the coastal communities from Daytona Beach to Fort Pierce. On January 25, an arctic high-pressure system settled over the southeastern US that maintained the clear and cold weather across the Florida peninsula. Overnight lows of 19 to 24 degrees occurred from Bronson to Brooksville, with temperatures in the 30s farther south. Northeast winds of 10 to 15 mph produced wind chills down to 25 degrees from Tampa to Lakeland to Fort Myers. An area of low pressure moved across the North Central Gulf region. Heavy rain changed over to snow across portions of the Central Gulf Coast as the low moved to the east. Snowfall accumulations ranged from a dusting to as much as 2 inches across the interior Western Florida Panhandle. Two inches of snow were reported in Munson and Berrydale. IV. Probability of Future Winter Storm and Freeze Events During the 2013 revision process, data indicated that the likelihood and probability of future occurrences of severe winter storms in Florida tended to result more in flooding and tornadoes than in snow and ice. Based on all the historical evidence, it is anticipated that a moderate freeze may be expected in Florida every one to two years. Severe freezes, where the greatest numbers of winter crops are lost, may be expected on average once every five years based on historic FEMA-declared disasters. State of Florida Enhanced Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 3.134

135 V. Winter Storm and Freeze Impact Analysis Winter storms will negatively affect the State of Florida with a variety of impacts: Winter storms affect the northern portion of the state more often and more severely than the southern areas; however, the entire state is susceptible to some level of winter weather and the related storms. Severe winter events including snow and ice are considered hazards; however, the impacts resulting from these events are historically more severe in regards to human and economic losses as opposed to damages to buildings and infrastructure. Deaths and injuries have occurred in the past from winter storm events. Deaths and injuries have resulted from various accidents including automobile collisions due to poor driving conditions or hypothermia resulting from insufficient heat. Emergency medical response can be severely hindered from the effects of a winter storm event. Roads and highways are most vulnerable to the effects of winter storms. Roads frequently become iced over, resulting in accidents, injuries, deaths, and traffic congestion. Roads can be heavily damaged due to winter weather events. Potholes and cracks can be found on roadways after a winter weather event, resulting in the need for repairs and causing further economic losses to the local area. Electrical transmission lines are highly vulnerable to severe winter weather. Trees frequently fall due to the extra weight of ice accumulating on branches. Trees falling on nearby power lines cause disruption of power service, which results in additional costs for repairs and maintenance. Other impacts resulting from winter storms include damage to plumbing, sewers, and waterlines, as well as minor roof damage and house fires resulting from portable heaters. First responders are increasingly at risk as they respond to traffic incidents and calls for medical attention. They are vulnerable to the same transportation dangers as other citizens, but often have to go out in hazardous conditions when ordinary citizens would not. During a winter storm and the days that follow, many people do not travel due to the road conditions. The absenteeism of workers affects the overall continuity of operations of the state government. Agricultural Vulnerability Analysis The State of Florida is vulnerable to winter storms, especially in the north; however, the state does not get the significant snow and ice that is typical in the northern United States. The state s primary vulnerability to this hazard is freezing temperatures that affect agriculture and specifically the citrus industry. The state has significant agriculture and livestock (details are included within in the drought hazard profile); however, the citrus industry is very important to the overall state economy. The citrus industry is particularly vulnerable to freezing temperatures since the primary growing season is throughout the winter months. Figure 3.31 shows the various types and the time periods of the greatest vulnerability. State of Florida Enhanced Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 3.135

136 Figure 3.31 Crop Vulnerability by Month Florida agriculture generates farm cash receipts of about $7 billion annually and has an estimated overall economic impact of $100 billion. The Florida citrus industry creates a $9.3 billion annual economic impact, employing nearly 76,000 people and covering more than 576,000 acres. Production of Florida citrus in totaled 10.9 million tons of oranges, down eight percent from the previous season. In the seasons, Florida accounted for 63.6 percent of the total U.S. citrus production. The top five agricultural commodities in 2010, with percent of U.S. value, were: 125 Greenhouse/nurseries (11.2 percent) Oranges (63.6 percent) Tomatoes (27.2 percent) Cane for sugar (54.4 percent) Cattle and calves (1 percent) The top five agricultural exports in 2010, with ranks among other states, include: 126 Fruits and preparations (3 rd ) Other (2 nd ) Vegetables and preparations (6 th ) Live animals and meat (24 th ) Seeds (6 th ) These statistics reflect the most recent updates to data available from the USDA Economic Research Service. 126 Ibid. State of Florida Enhanced Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 3.136

137 Table 3.47 lists the top five counties in Florida for agriculture sales and what percentage they are of the entire state s sales. Table 3.47 Top 5 Counties in Agricultural Sales in County Percent of State Total Receipts Sales ($Thousands) 1. Palm Beach County , Miami-Dade County , Hendry County , Hillsborough County , Polk County ,956 State Total 7,785,228 Table 3.48 shows the sales of citrus in the state up from Table 3.48 Florida Citrus Value of Sales On-tree from Crop Year 129 Values ($Thousands) ,108, , , , , , ,043, ,362,427 There were no existing updates for Table 3.47 and Table 3.48 above since the 2007 information. VI LMS Integration The SHMPAT focused on producing a statewide vulnerability analysis based on estimates provided by the LMS plans. Risk assessment information from the LMS plans is current as of May 1, Ibid Excludes lemons beginning in the season. State of Florida Enhanced Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 3.137

138 Based on the LMS plans in the State of Florida, Figure 3.32 displays the jurisdictional rankings for the winter storm hazard. Not all counties have identified winter storm as one of their hazards. High-risk Jurisdictions 2 Medium-high risk Jurisdictions 5 Medium-risk Jurisdictions 23 Low-risk Jurisdictions 15 Figure 3.32 Winter Storm Hazard Rankings by County State of Florida Enhanced Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 3.138

139 Based on the LMS plans in the State of Florida, Figure 3.33 displays the jurisdictional rankings for the freeze hazard. Not all counties have identified freezes as one of their hazards. High-risk Jurisdictions 1 Medium-high risk Jurisdictions 6 Medium-risk Jurisdictions 21 Low-risk Jurisdictions 16 Figure 3.33 Freeze Hazard Rankings by County VII. Winter Storm and Freeze Hazard Vulnerability Analysis by Jurisdiction This update researched the overall vulnerability to winter weather and collected data to assist with the estimation of potential losses. Severe winter weather events do not occur with the same frequency within all parts of Florida. Counties found in northern Florida have experienced more winter weather than central and southern counties. State of Florida Enhanced Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 3.139

140 VIII. Assessing Vulnerability of State Facilities During the initial analysis, a vulnerability analysis on winter storms and freezes was not conducted. During the 2007 plan update and revision process, a winter storm and freeze specific analysis was added. The 2013 plan does not change the perspective that state facilities are not themselves vulnerable to winter storms and freezes; the operating capacity of a building may be affected by this particular hazard but not to a significant degree. The past and future vulnerabilities to winter storm events within Florida were reviewed in an effort to determine the state s overall vulnerability. However, winter storms similar to droughts usually do not cause direct structural damage to facilities. Currently, the low risk vulnerable areas of the state to winter storms are the northern portion of the state and the Panhandle. The very low risk vulnerable areas of the state are the north-central counties, and the extremely low risk areas are found from the central part of the state southward. IX. Estimating Potential Losses by Jurisdiction The 2004 original plan did not perform a loss estimate on a statewide level for winter storms and freezes. During the 2010 and 2013 plan update process, the SHMPAT researched the potential losses related to winter storms and freezes and collected data to assist with this estimation. National Climatic Data Center Winter Storm and Freeze Loss Estimation Data from the NCDC provides details about the historical winter storms and freezes in the state. Table 3.49 shows a breakdown of the types of winter weather events that have occurred in Florida between October 2006 and April Type of Weather Event Table 3.49 Historical Winter Storm and Freeze Summary 130 NCDC Reports Average per Year Annualized Property Loss ($Millions) Annualized Crop Loss ($Millions) Extreme Cold Freeze Winter Storm/Weather Total State of Florida Enhanced Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 3.140

141 In Table 3.50, according to the NCDC, the following losses resulted from the 79 winter weather events in the state from 1996 to April Table 3.50 Winter Weather Event Impacts on Florida Deaths Injuries Property Damage Crop Damage Total Damages Total ( ) 2 1 $4,415,000 $1,271,705,000 $1,276,120,000 Annual Average $275,937 $79,481,563 $79,757,500 Average per Event 0 0 $9,577 $2,758,579 $2,768,156 Based on this historical data, the average estimated loss per winter weather event is approximately $2,768,156, with the majority of this related to crop damage and not property damage. The following statistics were noted by the SHMPAT to qualify this estimated loss: There were seven listed extreme cold events with damages greater than $50 million. The event with the highest crop damage occurred December 14, 2010, with more than $300 million in damages in Indian River County. The SHMPAT determined that worst-case loss estimates for winter freezes could easily reach into the hundreds of millions of dollars in damages. However, as part of the loss estimation, the team discarded the events with no damage and the seven high-dollar events (more than $50 million) and calculated a more typical loss. Based on this revised estimation, a more typical loss from a winter storm or freeze is approximately $2,547,500. X. Estimating Potential Losses of State Facilities During the 2013 plan update and revision process, the winter weather-specific estimation of losses has not been calculated, as the impacts to state facilities from severe winter weather are negligible. Over long-term analysis, the State of Florida is impacted regularly with winter storm events, placing billions of dollars in property at risk. The southern part of the state is the least vulnerable, while the northern part of the state and the Panhandle are the most vulnerable Erosion Profile I. Erosion Description and Background Information Coastal erosion is the wearing away of land or the removal of beach or dune sediments by wave action, tidal currents, wave currents, or drainage; the wearing away of land by the action of natural forces; on a beach, the carrying away of beach material by wave action, tidal currents, State of Florida Enhanced Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 3.141

142 littoral currents or by deflation. 131 Waves generated by storms cause coastal erosion, which may take the form of long-term losses of sediment and rocks, or merely in the temporary redistribution of coastal sediments. The study of erosion and sediment redistribution is called coastal morphodynamics, which can be described also as the dynamic interaction between shoreline, seabed, and water. The floodplains data used in this revision does not contain coastal flood zones (high velocity zones vulnerable to erosion). The ability of waves to cause erosion depends on a number of factors, which include: The hardness or erodibility of the beach, cliff, or rocks, including the presence of fissures, fractures, and beds of non-cohesive materials such as silt and fine sand. The rate at which sediment is eroded from the foreshore is dependent on the power of the waves crossing the beach, and this energy must reach a critical level or material will not be removed from the debris lobe. Beaches actually help dissipate wave energy on the foreshore and can provide a measure of protection to cliffs, rocks, and other harder formations, as well as any area upland. The lowering of the beach or shore platform through wave action is a key factor controlling the rate of erosion. A beach is generally lowered when its profile changes shape in response to a change in the wave climate. If the beach is not lowered, the foreshore should widen and become more effective at dissipating the wave energy, so that fewer and less powerful waves affect the area. The near shore bathymetry controls the wave energy arriving at the coast, and can have an important influence on the rate of erosion. Table 3.51 outlines the major factors that control the overall rate of erosion in an area. Table 3.51 Erosion Contribution Factors First Order Second Order Third Order Geological structure and lithology Weathering and transport Coastal land use a) Hardness slope processes Resource extraction b) Height, etc. Slope hydrology Coastal management c) Fractures/faults Vegetation d) Wave climate Cliff foot erosion e) Prevailing wave direction Cliff foot sediment f) Sub-aerial climate accumulation g) Weathering (frost, etc.) Resistance of cliff foot h) Stress relief swelling/ sediment to attrition and shrinkage transport i) Water-level change j) Groundwater fluctuations k) Tidal range l) Geomorphology 131 Coastal Engineering Manual, glossary, State of Florida Enhanced Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 3.142

143 As beaches are constantly moving, building up here and eroding there, in response to waves, winds, storms, and relative sea level rise, this issue requires long-term analysis and planning. The current beach-erosion problem has many causes, including the following items: The desire by many to live near the sea. A historically rapid rise in average ocean levels, now estimated to be rising at about centimeters per century in much of the United States. The gradual sinking of coastal land (since the height of the land and the sea are both changing, the relative sea level rise is used to describe the rise of the ocean compared to the height of land in a particular location). Efforts to reduce erosion that have proved to be ineffective and instead increased it. Global warming, which is expected to accelerate the rise in sea level. Some erosion changes are slow, inexorable, and usually gradual. However, the changes on a beach, in contrast, can happen overnight, especially during a storm. Even without storms, sediment may be lost to long shore drift (the currents that parallel coastlines), or sediment may be pulled to deeper water and lost to the coastal system. Fortunately, even though beach erosion is a major problem, it has many solutions; however, they do not address the cause of erosion: Beach nourishment : This is a process in which the sand is deposited onto the beaches by humans; however, there is a very high cost associated with the solution. Rebuilding rivers : This is a process of guiding rivers back into places with a lack of sediment with the hope that they will push the sediment back into place. Breakwaters, sea walls, and groins: There are a number of structural remedies that have some success with erosion. Each location has different requirements that drive the specific development and construction of breakwaters, groins, and sea walls. There are some flaws and issues with these types of remedies as they sometimes trap as much sediment as they deposit with down-drift effects. Limits on beach development: Limiting, restricting, or prohibiting development on the impacted beaches. The primary vehicle for implementing the beach management planning recommendations is the Florida Beach Erosion Control Program (BECP) within the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (DEP), a program established for the purpose of working in concert with local, state, and federal governmental entities to achieve the protection, preservation, and restoration of the coastal sandy beach resources of the state. Under the program, financial assistance in an amount of up to 50 percent of project costs is available to Florida's county and municipal governments, community development districts, or special taxing districts for shore protection and preservation activities. Eligible activities include beach restoration and nourishment activities, project design and engineering studies, environmental studies and monitoring, inlet management planning, inlet sediment transfer, dune restoration and protection activities, and other beach erosion prevention-related activities consistent with the adopted Strategic Beach Management Plan State of Florida Enhanced Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 3.143

144 As part of the 2013 revision process, it is noted that the following items provide some detail about this program and the general erosion hazard in the state, as of June 2011: Nearly 495 miles, or approximately 60 percent of the state s beaches, are experiencing erosion. About 40 feet of shoreline erodes every year according to DEP. 133 About 410 miles of the state s 825 miles of sandy beaches have experienced critical erosion, a level of erosion that threatens substantial development, recreational, cultural, or environmental interests. While some of this erosion is due to natural forces and imprudent coastal development, a significant amount of coastal erosion in Florida is directly attributable to the construction and maintenance of navigation inlets. Florida has over 60 inlets around the state, many of which have been artificially deepened to accommodate commercial and recreational vessels and employ jetties to prevent sediment from filling in the channels. A by-product of this practice is that the jetties and the inlet channels have interrupted the natural flow of sediment along the beach, causing an accumulation of sediment in the inlet channel and at the jetty on one side of the inlet, and a loss of sediment to the beaches on the other side of the inlet. Local, state, and federal entities are now managing more than 200 miles of restored beaches in Florida. 134 Beach Erosion and Control Program The following items in Table 3.52 show the general progression of the erosion program managed by the Florida Department of Environmental Protection and detail some of the major initiatives. Date Table 3.52 Erosion Control Milestones 135 Information 1999 A post-hurricane Earl and Georges Recovery Plan was prepared in January The March 1999 critical erosion list included changes resulting from the impacts of Hurricanes Opal, Earl, and Georges, as well as other less impacting storms The 2000 critical erosion list was the result of continued investigations in 1999, including the significant effects from Hurricanes Floyd, Irene and Tropical Storm Harvey Only a couple of additions were made in Palm Beach County in 2001; however, Tropical Storm Gabrielle caused erosion in the fall of 2001, prompting the addition of critical areas in Flagler and Charlotte Counties in Due to recovery in the Panhandle since the hurricanes of 1995 and 1998, a few areas in Okaloosa, Bay, and Gulf Counties were removed from the critical list. 133 Florida Battles Over Beach Erosion, Costs of Replenishment. Tamara Rush. Insurance Journal. March 19, Florida Department of Environmental Protection. Critically Eroded Beaches in Florida, 2011 update. State of Florida Enhanced Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 3.144

145 Date Information 2002 The current 2002 list includes miles of critical beach erosion, 9.1 miles of critical inlet shoreline erosion, miles of non-critical beach erosion, and 3.7 miles of noncritical inlet shoreline erosion statewide The 2006 annual report on critically eroded beaches in Florida lists the following statistics: miles of critical beach erosion, 96.8 miles of non-critical beach erosion, 8.6 miles of critical inlet erosion, and 3.2 miles of non-critical inlet erosion The Beach and Shore Preservation Act and the Ecosystem Management and Restoration Trust Fund charge the DEP with developing and implementing a comprehensive, longrange, statewide beach management plan. This budget plan projects the 10-year funding needs from federal, state, and local governments necessary to implement the strategic plan. The first year of this budget plan was FY The 2008 list included miles of critically eroded beach, 8.9 miles of critically eroded inlet shoreline, 95.5 miles of non-critically eroded beach, and 3.2 miles of non-critically eroded inlet shoreline statewide The Critical Eroded Beaches in Florida report updated June 2010, listed miles of critically eroded beach, 8.6 miles of critically eroded inlet shoreline, 95.9 miles of noncritically eroded beach, and 3.2 miles of non-critically eroded inlet shoreline statewide. There were no updates to these totals in The Critical Eroded Beaches in Florida report updated June 2012, listed miles of critically eroded beach, 8.7 miles of critically eroded inlet shoreline, 96.2 miles of noncritically eroded beach, and 3.2 miles of non-critically eroded inlet shoreline statewide. II. Geographic Areas Affected by Erosion The Bureau of Beaches and Coastal Systems develops and publishes annually the Critically Eroded Beaches Report. The data from this report is gathered from a set of monitoring locations along the coast throughout the state. Data is collected from each of these stations, and then compiled into a GIS database for modeling and analysis. The continual reporting and analysis is combined with the historical data for detailed records about the status of the state s beaches. Erosion is a constantly changing issue as development continues on the beaches and in the inlets. It can also be instantly changed by a large storm or a hurricane. III. Historical Occurrences of Erosion DEP maintains a database of all the occurrences of erosion in the state with high quality reporting since the inception of BECP. There are constantly cases of beach erosion throughout the state, and the 2013 revision reflects agreement that these previous occurrences would not be listed in this section. BECP develops databases about these previous occurrences and can be accessed at the following website: The disastrous hurricane seasons of had a severe impact on the state in terms of erosion, and DEP has published a number of reports about the specific details of these events. A number of these events are profiled below in Table State of Florida Enhanced Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 3.145

146 Date 2004 Hurricane Season July 10, 2005 Hurricane Dennis 2005 Hurricane Season Hurricane Seasons Table 3.53 Significant Erosion Contribution Events 136 Information During the 2004 hurricane season, one tropical storm and four major hurricanes made landfall along Florida s coastline. Nearly all of the state s sandy beach shorelines were affected. DEP, in concert with local and federal agencies, conducted impact assessments of the state s Gulf and Atlantic fronting sandy beaches. Over 825 miles of beach were impacted. Many of the impact areas required varying levels of recovery activities ranging from natural recovery to dune restoration or full-scale beach re-nourishment. Many structures were damaged or destroyed and continue to be threatened due to the condition of the beach and dune systems. Hurricane Dennis made landfall on the northwest coast of Florida with the eye crossing Santa Rosa Island near Big Sabine Point. Dog Island in Franklin County, Florida, lies between 184 and 190 miles east of the point of landfall of the eye of Hurricane Dennis. Dennis made landfall as a Category 3 hurricane with winds of 115 to 120 mph near its eye. On Dog Island, winds were below hurricane strength and likely in the 40 to 65 mph range. However, storm tides of around 10 feet were observed in this area and contained damaging storm waves. The NOAA weather buoy offshore from Panama City measured wave heights to 34.8 feet. Major beach and dune erosion (condition IV) was sustained along most of the island. The western Narrows (R156-R160) and eastern Narrows (R163-R168) were inundated by the storm tide, and all dunes in these areas were leveled with over-wash into St. George Sound. The south Florida counties of Dade and Monroe sustained significant beach erosion conditions from the 2005 hurricane season. Four hurricanes, Dennis (July 10), Katrina (August 25), Rita (September 20), and Wilma (October 24), caused erosion and flooding along the coastal barrier beaches of Dade County and the Florida Keys and mainland beaches of Monroe County. Hurricanes Dennis, Katrina, and Rita affected south Florida as Category 1 or 2 hurricanes before crossing the Gulf of Mexico, becoming major hurricanes and making landfall on the northern Gulf Coast outside of Florida. Hurricane Wilma crossed the southeast Gulf of Mexico from the west and made landfall to the north of Monroe and Miami-Dade counties as a Category 3 hurricane before exiting southeast Florida into the Atlantic Ocean. A mild tropical storm season in 2006 led to few additions for the 2007 updated listing. Notably, a recently eroded segment of South Ponte Vedra (2.0 miles) was added in St. Johns County, as well as small beach and inlet segments in Lee County at Boca Grande. Another segment was added to Escambia County on Perdido Key (0.9 miles) for the continuity of management of the coastal system. Although there was another relatively mild tropical storm season in 2007, with only Tropical Storms Andrea, Barry, and Noel affecting Florida beaches, persistent northeasters cumulatively stressed erosion conditions at a few hotspots along the Atlantic coast. Due to these storm effects, three small State of Florida Enhanced Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 3.146

147 Date 2011 Hurricane Season Information shoreline segments at Painters Hill in Flagler County (0.3 miles) and Lantana Municipal Beach in Palm Beach County (0.1 miles) have been added to the 2008 updated listing. At the north end of Manatee County, the shoreline of Passage Key (0.3 mile) has also been added to the 2008 updated listing. Segments on Perdido Key in Escambia County (4.0 miles), St. Joseph Peninsula in Gulf County (1.7 miles), and Alligator Point in Franklin County (0.8 miles) have been added for the design integrity of adjacent beach management projects. An updated study of Manasota Key resulted in the addition of a 1.5-mile segment in Sarasota County and Lee County included a non-critically eroded segment on North Captiva Island with a 0.8-mile critically eroded segment on Big Hickory Island brought a relatively mild tropical storm season for Florida s beaches with Tropical Storm Fay affecting predominately the Atlantic shoreline, and the Gulf Coast receiving fringe impacts of Hurricanes Gustav and Ike. Minor additions to critical erosion areas were seen in Nassau and Palm Beach counties. Small segments of Walton County were designated critical for the design integrity of adjacent beach management projects. The critically eroded north end of Anna Maria Island had its identity changed from inlet shoreline to gulf beach. 138 Statewide, miles of critically eroded beach, 8.6 miles of critically eroded inlet shoreline, 95.9 miles of noncritical eroded beach, and 3.2 miles of noncritical eroded inlet shoreline, were recorded. 138 IV. Probability of Future Erosion Events The beaches of Florida will continue to shift and change over time, especially when faced with the current levels of development. During the 2013 plan revision process, it was agreed that this hazard will continue to affect the state, and there is considerable work being done regularly to mitigate potential damages. DEP maintains an active and on-going program to study this issue and mitigate damages as much as possible. The SHMPAT considers this a high probability hazard, especially in conjunction with hurricanes, winter storms, and coastal flooding. There is a very high probability that this hazard will continue to affect the state in the future based on these factors: Locations: Erosion will continue to affect practically all the beaches of the state. Timing: This hazard will occur throughout the year during all seasons. Historical precedence: This hazard has occurred continually since recorded statistics have been kept. Episodic: This hazard is storm-induced and short-term State of Florida Enhanced Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 3.147

148 V. Erosion Impact Analysis Erosion will negatively affect the State of Florida with a variety of impacts: The state s beaches are eroded away at varying levels at all times, especially by strong storms and hurricanes. Erosion can cause property damage to houses and structures on or near the beach. Beach erosion can affect transportation waterways such as inlets and can interfere with boat traffic. Eroded beaches affect the level of tourism, and this lowers the overall economy of the coastal areas and the state. VI LMS Integration The SHMPAT focused on producing a statewide vulnerability analysis based on estimates provided by the LMS plans. The 67 multi-jurisdictional LMS plans provided a solid baseline for the overall state vulnerability analysis. Risk assessment information from the LMS plans is current as of May 1, Based on the LMS plans in the State of Florida, Figure 3.34 displays the jurisdictional rankings for the Erosion hazard. Not all counties have identified erosion as one of their hazards. High-risk Jurisdictions 8 Medium-high risk Jurisdictions 7 Medium-risk Jurisdictions 15 Low-risk Jurisdictions 19 State of Florida Enhanced Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 3.148

149 Figure 3.34 Erosion Hazard Rankings by County VII. Erosion Hazard Vulnerability Analysis by Jurisdiction During the 2010 plan update process, the SHMPAT coordinated with DEP regarding beach erosion. DEP provided data about the current areas considered at a high risk to erosion according to the GIS formatting that was used in this vulnerability analysis. There have not been updates to the data since the 2010 update. In the May 2008 Strategic Beach Management Plan, the critically eroded shorelines were listed by region along with the levels of management. Table 3.54 lists those values. State of Florida Enhanced Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 3.149

150 Table 3.54 Critically Eroded Managed Shoreline by Region 139 Region Critically Eroded Critically Eroded Managed Percent Shoreline (miles) Shoreline (miles) Managed Northeast Atlantic Coast Central Atlantic Coast Southeast Atlantic Coast Florida Keys Panhandle Gulf Big Bend Gulf Southwest Gulf Total Early statewide inventories of critical erosion areas included only those erosion problem areas where a threat existed to upland development or recreational interests. The most current inventory of critical erosion areas (March 1999/April 2002) was formulated based upon an updated and modified definition of critical erosion. The following definition has been adopted by the DEP s Bureau of Beaches and Coastal Systems to identify areas of critical erosion: Critical erosion area is a segment of the shoreline where natural processes or human activity have caused or contributed to erosion and recession of the beach or dune system to such a degree that upland development, recreational interests, wildlife habitat, or important cultural resources are threatened or lost. Critical erosion areas may also include peripheral segments or gaps between identified critical erosion areas, which, although they may be stable or slightly erosional now, their inclusion is necessary for continuity of management of the coastal system or for the design integrity of adjacent beach management projects. For an erosion problem area to be critical, a threat to or loss of one of four specific interests must exist: upland development, recreation, wildlife habitat, or important cultural resources. Of all the erosion problem areas around Florida, many have significant erosion conditions, yet the erosion processes do not currently threaten public or private interests. These areas are therefore designated as non-critical erosion areas and require close monitoring in case conditions become critical. By contrast, in some areas erosion processes are not particularly significant except to the extent that adjacent public or private interests may be threatened. Regardless of whether erosion is critical, the existence of a threat to public or private interests results in the need for protection. Lacking any threat, an erosion condition is not a critical problem. Figure 3.35 graphically shows the critical and noncritical shoreline erosion areas State of Florida Enhanced Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 3.150

151 Figure 3.35 Identified Critical and Noncritical Shoreline Erosion Areas 140 Table 3.55 and Table 3.56 summarize the number of critical and non-critical erosion areas by county and coast (coastal counties only). County Table 3.55 Number of Critical and Non-Critical Erosion Areas by County 141 Critical Non-Critical Critical Areas Areas Areas County (in Miles) (in Miles) (in Miles) Non-Critical Areas (in Miles) Bay Martin Brevard Miami-Dade Broward Monroe Charlotte Nassau Collier Okaloosa Dixie Palm Beach State of Florida Enhanced Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 3.151

152 County Critical Areas (in Miles) Non-Critical Areas (in Miles) County Critical Areas (in Miles) Non-Critical Areas (in Miles) Duval Pasco Escambia Pinellas Flagler Santa Rosa Franklin Sarasota Gulf St. Johns Hernando St. Lucie Hillsborough Taylor Indian River Volusia Lee Wakulla Levy Walton Manatee Table 3.56 Summary of Florida Coastal Erosion Areas 142 Beach Inlet Critical Non-Critical Critical Non-Critical Total Gulf Coast Total Atlantic Coast Total Florida Keys Statewide Appendix C: Risk Assessment Tables contains detailed information of critical erosion areas by county and length of the critical area. Additional information on the erosion areas for each coastal county fronting on the Atlantic Ocean, Gulf of Mexico, and Straits of Florida is available from FDEP, Bureau of Beaches and Coastal Systems. The listing of critical and non-critical erosion areas are identified by the Bureau s reference movement system (R numbers) or by virtual stations (V numbers). A few areas are not identified by either the R or V numbers because they are not included in the coastal construction control line program, nor have virtual stations been designated. These areas without R or V numbers are usually inlet shoreline areas, Florida Keys erosion areas, coastal bend erosion areas, and a few barrier islands in Pinellas, Hillsborough, and Collier counties. VIII. Assessing Vulnerability of State Facilities During the 2013 plan update and revision process, a specific hazard vulnerability analysis has been addressed and updated State of Florida Enhanced Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 3.152

153 For this hazard, an accurate vulnerability to state facilities could not be adequately conducted due to the following elements: Coastal erosion takes place only in specific areas along the coastline. Few to none of the state s facilities are located on the beach or coastline. Implying that a county has a coastal erosion problem and therefore all of its state facilities located within the county are thereby vulnerable would be an inaccurate and misleading statement. IX. Estimating Potential Losses by Jurisdiction SHMPAT Erosion Research As part of the loss estimation, the SHMPAT coordinated with the Bureau of Beaches and Coastal Systems for current data on beach erosion. There were no significant updates to the beach erosion information for the 2010 or 2013 plan update. The information below is a continuation of the 2007 plan update. The SHMPAT and DEP recognized the difficulty in estimating losses related directly to erosion because of these factors: Some erosion is long term and must be monitored constantly over years. Significant beach erosion is related to hurricanes and severe storms that suddenly reshape a beach. Damage from these events is typically caused by winds and water, and the erosion is not specifically related to the losses. Many erosion-related damages are small, on private property, and are never reported. The SHMPAT and DEP determined that a better way to estimate potential losses from erosion was to analyze the various projects and initiatives that DEP manages in order to protect and revitalize the state s beaches. The DEP program is authorized by Section , Florida Statutes. Since its inception in 1964, BECP has been a primary source of funding to local governments for beach erosion control and preservation activities. Through the fiscal year 2006, the most current information, over $582 million has been appropriated by the legislature for beach erosion control activities and hurricane recovery. Eligible activities include: Beach restoration and nourishment activities Project design and engineering studies Environmental studies and monitoring Inlet management planning Inlet sand transfer Dune restoration and protection activities Other beach erosion prevention-related activities consistent with the adopted Strategic Beach Management Plan State of Florida Enhanced Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 3.153

154 Practically all coastal jurisdictions are experiencing losses from beach erosion. DEP studies predict this trend to continue; therefore, the SHMPAT estimates that more than 50 percent of the state s beaches will continue to experience losses to these beautiful and critical natural resources. X. Estimating Potential Losses of State Facilities The SHMPAT did not conduct loss estimations on erosion for state facilities in 2004 during the original plan development process. During the 2013 plan update and revision process, the team concluded that an accurate loss estimate to state facilities could not be adequately conducted due to the geographic data limitations of the state facility database. Coastal erosion takes place only in specific areas along the coastline, and to accurately model the estimated losses to state facilities, more precise geographic state facility data is needed against which to model. Modeling the coastal erosion on a county-by-county basis and implying that a county has a coastal erosion problem and therefore all of its state facilities could suffer potential losses would be an inaccurate statement. The SHMPAT has concluded that the requirements to effectively model the estimated losses of state facilities to coastal erosion require that more accurate geographic data be collected for each of the state facility locations. When more accurate data becomes available, loss estimation information will be included Sinkholes, Earthquakes, and Landslides Profile I. Sinkholes, Earthquakes, and Landslides Description and Background Information Sinkholes Sinkholes are common where the rock below the land surface is limestone, carbonate rock, salt beds, or rocks that can naturally be dissolved by ground water circulating through them. As the rock dissolves, spaces and caverns develop underground. Sinkholes are dramatic because the land usually stays intact on the surface until the underground spaces get too big. If there is not enough support for the land above the spaces, then a sudden collapse of the land surface can occur. These collapses can be small or they can be large, and they can occur under a house or road. A significant number of sinkholes tend to occur in the years that follow a drought. When an area has a long-term lack of rain and water levels decrease, there is usually a correlated link to an increase in incidences of sinkholes being reported. Historically, years where dry weather has been followed by wet weather have resulted in some of the greatest increases in sinkhole occurrences. State of Florida Enhanced Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 3.154

155 Ground water pumping in specific areas when water levels are already low and are forced lower can trigger a more sudden collapse of overburdened sediments and create sinkholes that might not have otherwise happened. Increases in ground water pumping, loading at land surface, retention pond building, and altering a landscape where the depth of the ground is being significantly changed are all activities that can induce sinkholes. Earthquakes An earthquake (also known as a quake, tremor, or temblor) is a sudden, rapid shaking of the earth caused by the breaking and shifting of rock beneath the earth's surface that creates seismic waves. This shaking can cause buildings and bridges to collapse; disrupt gas, electric, and phone service; and sometimes trigger landslides, flash floods, fires, and tsunamis. The effect of an earthquake on the Earth's surface is called the intensity. The intensity scale consists of a series of certain key responses such as people awakening, movement of furniture, damage to chimneys, and finally - total destruction. Although numerous intensity scales have been developed over the last several hundred years to evaluate the effects of earthquakes, the one currently used in the United States is the Modified Mercalli (MM) Intensity Scale. It was developed in 1931 by the American seismologists Harry Wood and Frank Neumann. This scale, composed of 12 increasing levels of intensity that range from imperceptible shaking to catastrophic destruction, is designated by Roman numerals. It does not have a mathematical basis; instead it is an arbitrary ranking based on observed effects. The Modified Mercalli Intensity value assigned to a specific site after an earthquake has a more meaningful measure of severity to the nonscientist than the magnitude because intensity refers to the effects actually experienced at that place. The lower numbers of the intensity scale generally deal with the manner in which the earthquake is felt by people. The higher numbers of the scale are based on observed structural damage. Structural engineers usually contribute information for assigning intensity values of VIII or above. The following list is the description of the Modified Mercalli Intensity Scale: I. Not felt except by a very few under especially favorable conditions. II. Felt only by a few persons at rest, especially on upper floors of buildings. III. Felt quite noticeably by persons indoors, especially on upper floors of buildings. Many people do not recognize it as an earthquake. Standing motor cars may rock slightly. Vibrations similar to the passing of a truck. Duration estimated. IV. Felt indoors by many, outdoors by few during the day. At night, some awakened. Dishes, windows, doors disturbed; walls make cracking sound. Sensation like heavy truck striking building. Standing motor cars rocked noticeably. V. Felt by nearly everyone, many awakened. Some dishes, windows broken. Unstable objects overturned. Pendulum clocks may stop. VI. Felt by all, many frightened. Some heavy furniture moved; a few instances of fallen plaster. Damage slight. VII. Damage negligible in buildings of good design and construction; slight to moderate in well-built ordinary structures; considerable damage in poorly built or badly designed structures; some chimneys broken. State of Florida Enhanced Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 3.155

156 Landslides VIII. Damage slight in specially designed structures; considerable damage in ordinary substantial buildings with partial collapse. Damage great in poorly built structures. Fall of chimneys, factory stacks, columns, monuments, walls. Heavy furniture overturned. IX. Damage considerable in specially designed structures; well-designed frame structures thrown out of plumb. Damage great in substantial buildings, with partial collapse. Buildings shifted off foundations. X. Some well-built wooden structures destroyed; most masonry and frame structures destroyed with foundations. Rails bent. XI. Few, if any (masonry) structures remain standing. Bridges destroyed. Rails bent greatly. XII. Damage total. Lines of sight and level are distorted. Objects thrown into the air. Landslides are rock, earth, or debris flows down slopes due to gravity. They can occur on any terrain given the right conditions of soil, moisture, and the angle of slope. Integral to the natural process of the Earth's surface geology, landslides serve to redistribute soil and sediments in a process that can be in abrupt collapses or in slow gradual slides. Also known as mud flows, debris flows, earth failures, and slope failures, landslides can be triggered by rains, floods, earthquakes, and other natural causes as well as human-made causes including grading, terrain cutting and filling, and excessive development. Because the factors affecting landslides can be geophysical or human-made, they can occur in developed areas, undeveloped areas, or any area where the terrain was altered for roads, houses, utilities, buildings, and even for lawns in one s backyard. They occur in all fifty states with varying frequency and more than half the states have rates sufficient to be classified as a significant natural hazard. 143 The State of Florida has very little relief compared to other states, and landslides are not a significant natural hazard. Any risk or vulnerability to people, property, the environment, or operations would be seen as uniformly low, and for this reason, there will not be a full hazard profile of landslides covered in this section. II. Geographic Areas Affected by Sinkholes and Earthquakes Sinkholes The most damage from sinkholes tends to occur in Florida, Texas, Alabama, Missouri, Kentucky, Tennessee, and Pennsylvania; however, Florida has more sinkholes than any other state in the nation. Florida s average sinkhole size is 3-4 feet across and 4-5 feet deep. 144 For this reason, and because they are one of the predominant landform features of the state, sinkholes are of particular interest to Florida. Their development may be sudden and has the potential to result State of Florida Enhanced Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 3.156

157 in property damage or loss of life. There are as many as 150 sinkholes reported each year in Florida. This is because the Florida landmass is generally formed by limestone with a thin layer of sediment covering it, usually consisting of very loose sediment. However, the covering on the porous limestone below is often only temporary. Limestone is very soluble, and as water moves through it, small holes develop and grow into larger holes. The overburdened sediments can cover the hole for a certain amount of time, but once the holes get larger than their ability to bridge across it, the sediments collapse into it. Figure 3.36 notes the locations of sinkhole occurrences throughout the state that have been reported to the Florida Subsidence Incident Report (SIR) Database at Florida Geological Survey. These land subsidences have not been verified by a geologist, but are rather reports from citizens when land subsidences occurred that they were aware of. Although these are not the best source of information, due to the lack of an official database for the state, this is the most relevant and useful source that the SHMP can utilize for the purposes of this plan. Figure 3.36 Sinkhole Occurrences FL Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) sinkhole inventory at: State of Florida Enhanced Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 3.157

158 Sinkholes are common wherever there is limestone terrain, but are rare in the southern part of the state. Central Florida and the Big Bend region have the largest incidence of sinkholes. Table 3.57 identifies the number of sinkholes 50 feet or deeper, by county in Florida reported through the SIR Database. These land subsidences have not been verified by a geologist, but are rather reports from citizens when land subsidences occurred that they were aware of. Although these are not the best source of information, due to the lack of an official database for the state, this is the most relevant and useful source that the SHMP can utilize for the purposes of this plan. Table 3.57 Sinkholes per County that were 50 Feet or Deeper County Number of Sinkholes 50 feet Number of Sinkholes 50 feet County or Deeper or Deeper Alachua 1 Levy 2 Citrus 1 Marion 1 Columbia 1 Orange 11 Gadsden 1 Pasco 3 Hernando 4 Polk 23 Hillsborough 5 Seminole 3 Jackson 1 Suwannee 2 Jefferson 1 Taylor 1 Lake 4 Volusia 1 Lee 1 Total Recorded 67 III. Historical Occurrences of Sinkholes and Earthquakes Sinkholes Perhaps the most famous sinkhole in recent U.S. history is the one formed in May 1981 in Winter Park, Florida. The sinkhole was roughly circular but elongated, (approximately 300 feet by 300 feet in size) and swallowed one house, a shed, half of a swimming pool, a sports car, several large oak trees, a section of the crossing street, and an estimated four million cubic feet of soil. An overview of other occurrences is found in Table Date September 16, 1999 July 12, 2001 Table 3.58 Significant Sinkhole Occurrences Information Lake Jackson in Tallahassee, a nationally known bass fishing lake, experienced a sinkhole on September 16, 1999, that suddenly drained more than half the lake, including water, fish, and alligators. Emergency officials for Hernando County investigated 18 confirmed sinkholes that hit in one day across the area, affecting a block residential area and causing extensive damage to one house. One of the largest holes measured between 50 and 100 feet deep. State of Florida Enhanced Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 3.158

159 Date June 2002 June 8, 2009 September 15, 2009 June 2012 Information A 150-foot-wide sinkhole forced the evacuation of part of a 450-unit apartment building in Orlando, and a Spring Hill woman saw a 40-foot wide hole open in a retention area behind her uninsured home. A sinkhole occurred at about 8:45 a.m. and forced the FDOT to close the northbound outside lane of Route 29 near Hollymead, leaving drivers to pack into one lane, backing up traffic most of the day. Less than 10 feet in width but more than 50 feet deep, this sinkhole was the first of many discovered in High Spring after a Thursday, Sept. 15, torrential downpour. The largest sinkhole measured 75 feet deep and more than a hundred feet across. About a half dozen more are clustered in the same area, with some ranging from just a few feet across and a few feet deep to others that are much larger and deeper. Tropical Storm Debby resulted in a number of new sinkholes opening across Florida including in Suwannee, Hernando, and Pasco counties. Comprehensive sinkhole data from Tropical Storm Debby has not been compiled or published as of July 15, Earthquakes Earthquakes are very rare in Florida and there are no significant recorded incidents. Of the earthquakes felt in Florida, only six are thought to have had epicenters within Florida. The following list in Table 3.59 has been compiled from numerous sources that cite Campbell (1943), the U.S. Geological Survey, and accounts from local newspapers as sources. Table 3.59 Seismic Activity Reports Date of Mercalli Occurrence Intensity Description October 1727 VI A severe quake was reported in St. Augustine (unofficial). February 1780 A mild tremor was felt in Pensacola. January 1879 VI Earthquake felt through North and Central Florida from Fort Myers to Daytona on the south, to a line drawn from Tallahassee to Savannah, Georgia, on the north (25,000 square miles). January 1880 VII Earthquake in Cuba; felt in Florida, about 120 miles east of Havana. January 1880 VII VIII Several shocks were felt in Key West resulting from a disastrous earthquake at Vuelta Abajo, about 80 miles west of Havana, Cuba. August 1886 V VI The great earthquake in Charleston, South Carolina (MMX) was felt all over Florida, ringing bells in St. Augustine. Also, felt in Tampa. September 1886 IV Jacksonville felt more aftershocks from the Charleston quake. November 1886 Jacksonville felt another aftershock from the Charleston quake. June 1893 IV Jacksonville felt a tremor. October 1900 V Shock at Jacksonville, recorded by U.S. Coast and Geodetic State of Florida Enhanced Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 3.159

160 Date of Occurrence Mercalli Intensity Description Survey. June 1912 V Strong shock felt in Savannah, probably associated with 6/12 quake, felt in north Florida. June 1930 V (Exact date unknown) A tremor was felt over a wide area in central Florida near LaBelle, Fort Myers, and Marco Island. November 1935 IV or V Two short tremors were felt at Palatka and another shock was felt at St. Augustine and on nearby Anastasia Island. January 1942 IV Several shocks felt on the south coast of Florida, with some shocks felt near Lake Okeechobee and in the Fort Myers area. January1945 Windows shook violently in the DeLand courthouse, Volusia County. December 1945 I III Shock felt in the Miami Beach Hollywood area. November 1948 A sudden jar, accompanied by sounds like distant explosions, rattled doors and windows on Captiva Island, west of Fort Myers. November 1952 A slight tremor rattled windows and doors at Quincy, about 20 miles northwest of Tallahassee. March 1953 IV Two shocks were felt in the Orlando area. October 1973 V Shock felt in central east coastal area of Seminole, Volusia, Orange, and Brevard Counties. December 1975 IV Shock felt in Daytona and Orlando areas. January 1978 November 1978 Two shocks reported by residents in eastern Polk County south of Haines were about one minute apart and each lasted 15 seconds, shaking doors and rattling windows. Tremors felt in parts of Northwest Florida near Lake City, origination believed to be in the Atlantic Ocean. September 2006 The magnitude 6.0 temblor, centered about 330 miles (530 kilometers) southeast of New Orleans, Louisiana, occurred at 8:56 a.m. local time. It was felt in parts of Florida, Georgia, Alabama, Louisiana, and Mississippi. 146 IV. Probability of Future Sinkhole and Earthquake Events Sinkholes The SHMPAT has determined that the probability of future sinkhole events within the State of Florida is considered to be high due to their review of past historical events and the continuation of ongoing reports of sinkhole activity from across the state State of Florida Enhanced Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 3.160

161 Earthquakes The probability is extremely low that a major earthquake will affect the State of Florida and cause significant damage. The state is considered to be in the low-risk category for seismic activity. Figure 3.37 shows a model for the region in the state at risk for earthquakes. The map below shows zones of peak ground acceleration as a percentage of gravitational acceleration. There is a two percent probability that the given acceleration range will be exceeded in a 50-year period. Figure 3.37 Earthquake, Peak Ground Acceleration 147 V. Sinkhole and Earthquake Impact Analysis This section has been updated for the 2013 plan revision, since its addition for the 2010 plan update. Sinkholes and seismic events will negatively affect the State of Florida with a variety of impacts. The following section discusses these hazards. 147 Results obtained via GIS analysis of aggregated data sources. State of Florida Enhanced Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 3.161

162 Sinkholes Sinkholes can be very sudden and relatively large. Depending on the location of the sinkhole, severe damage can be done to individual properties or to roads and other infrastructure. Sinkholes occur because the entire state is underlain by limestone, a type of rock that is slowly dissolved by weak natural acids found in rain and in the pore spaces in soil. Solution sinkholes: where limestone bedrock is thinly covered, depending on the area, there are relatively few to a moderate number of sinkholes. They are usually shallow and broad and develop gradually. Cover-subsidence sinkholes: areas of limestone covered by sediment, that are easily permeable to water and incohesive because they contain little clay, are susceptible to these types of sinkholes. Sinkholes in these areas tend to be few, small, and develop gradually, even though the sediment may range in thickness from 30 to 200 feet. Cover-collapse sinkholes: sinkholes are a problem in areas where sediments that lie above the limestone are mainly clays mixed with sediment. Clay causes these sediments, which also range in thickness from 30 to 200 feet, to be cohesive. They are not very permeable to water. Sinkholes are most numerous in these areas. They vary in size and may form suddenly. In a few areas of Florida, over 200 feet of sediments cover the underlying limestone. Although there are not many sinkholes in these areas, the ones that occur are deep and wide. The abrupt formation of sinkholes may follow extreme rain producing events such as tropical storms or hurricanes. This is because the weight of a large amount of rainwater at the earth s surface may bring about the collapse of an underground cavity if its limestone ceiling has become thin. This tendency for sinkholes to form following events that produce large amounts of rainfall is made worse in times of drought. During periods of drought, underground cavities that might normally be filled with water may be only partially filled. These cavities are less likely to bear the weight of floodwaters without collapsing. Sinkhole activity can be triggered by localized extreme lowering of the groundwater table (generally caused by agricultural pumping). Earthquakes Earthquakes are very rare in Florida. Florida is situated on the trailing (or passive) margin of the North American Plate, while California is located on its active margin. The active margin is bounded by faults that generate earthquakes when there is movement along them. This is the fundamental reason that Florida has an extremely low incidence of earthquakes, while California experiences many (mostly small) earthquakes. A number of seismic faults have been proposed for Florida over the years based on various criteria. Because of the difficulties in defining faults in the state, there is little agreement concerning the validity of those that have been proposed. None of the proposed features in Florida is known to have any seismicity associated with them, with the possible exception of Escambia County. State of Florida Enhanced Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 3.162

163 VI LMS Integration The SHMPAT focused on producing a statewide vulnerability analysis based on estimates provided by the LMS plans. The 67 multi-jurisdictional LMS plans provided a solid baseline for the overall state vulnerability analysis. Risk assessment information from the LMS plans is current as of May 1, The following pages having the risk assessment information for sinkholes and earthquakes in the State of Florida. Sinkholes Based on the LMS plans, Figure 3.38 displays the jurisdictional rankings for the sinkhole hazard. Not all counties have identified sinkholes as one of their hazards. High-risk Jurisdictions 5 Medium-High-risk Jurisdictions 3 Medium-risk Jurisdictions 12 Low-risk Jurisdictions 41 Figure 3.38 Sinkhole Hazard Rankings by County State of Florida Enhanced Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 3.163

164 Earthquakes Based on the LMS plans in the State of Florida, Figure 3.39 displays the jurisdictional rankings for the earthquake hazard. Not all counties have identified seismic activity as one of their hazards. High-risk Jurisdictions 0 Medium-High-risk Jurisdictions 0 Medium-risk Jurisdictions 0 Low-risk Jurisdictions 38 Figure 3.39 Earthquake Hazard Rankings by County State of Florida Enhanced Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 3.164

165 VII. Sinkhole and Earthquake Hazard Vulnerability Analysis by Jurisdiction Sinkholes As of August 2012, the FGS SIR database has 3,378 entries of land subsidences with the first entry recorded April 1, Table 3.60 shows their distribution by county. These land subsidences haven t been verified by a geologist, but are rather reports from citizens when land subsidences occurred that they were aware of. Although these are not the best source of information, this is the most relevant and useful source that the SHMP can utilize. Table 3.60 Reported Sinkholes in Florida 148 County Name Number of Sinkholes County Name Number of Sinkholes Alachua 55 Levy 69 Bay 1 Liberty 1 Broward 4 Madison 6 Charlotte 1 Manatee 5 Citrus 355 Marion 339 Clay 3 Martin 1 Collier 2 Monroe 1 Columbia 30 Nassau 2 Dade 1 Okaloosa 2 Dixie 13 Orange 194 Duval 8 Osceola 11 Gadsden 2 Palm Beach 5 Gilchrist 46 Pasco 255 Hamilton 13 Pinellas 74 Hardee 22 Polk 267 Hendry 1 Putnam 3 Hernando 263 Sarasota 6 Highlands 11 Seminole 130 Hillsborough 516 St. Johns 4 Holmes 3 Sumter 24 Indian River 6 Suwannee 190 Jackson 20 Taylor 20 Jefferson 3 Volusia 87 Lafayette 6 Wakulla 55 Lake 115 Walton 3 Lee 3 Washington 3 Leon 118 Total 3, State of Florida Enhanced Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 3.165

166 Based on historical evidence, the most vulnerable counties to sinkholes are located mostly in the center portion of the peninsula in Hillsborough, Citrus, Marion, Polk, Hernando, Pasco, and Orange counties. Earthquakes The population vulnerable to earthquakes using this model is showing in Table Detailed tables about vulnerability to facilities and structures, and the economic value by county, can be found in Appendix C: Risk Assessment Tables. Table 3.61 Earthquake Hazard, Population 149 County 0 2% g 2 4% g 4 6% g 6 8% g Alachua 4, ,834 Baker 27,115 Bay 168,852 Bradford 28,520 Brevard 543,376 Broward 1,748,066 Calhoun 14,625 Charlotte 159,978 Citrus 141,236 Clay 190,865 Collier 321,520 Columbia 67,531 DeSoto 34,862 Dixie 16, Duval 864,263 Escambia 1, ,197 Flagler 95,696 Franklin 11,549 Gadsden 35,210 11,179 Gilchrist 10,514 6,425 Glades 12,884 Gulf 15,863 Hamilton 14,799 Hardee 27,731 Hendry 39,140 Hernando 172,778 Highlands 98,786 Hillsborough 1,229,226 Holmes 11,661 8,266 Indian River 138, State of Florida Enhanced Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 3.166

167 County 0 2% g 2 4% g 4 6% g 6 8% g Jackson 38,098 11,648 Jefferson 2,570 12,191 Lafayette 84 8,786 Lake 297, Lee 618,754 Leon 238,376 37,111 Levy 40,801 Liberty 8,365 Madison ,902 Manatee 322,833 Marion 320,691 10,607 Martin 146,318 Miami-Dade 862,971 1,633,464 Monroe 73,084 6 Nassau 38,436 34,878 Okaloosa 126,699 54,123 Okeechobee 39,996 Orange 1,145,956 Osceola 268,685 Palm Beach 1,320,134 Pasco 464,697 Pinellas 916,542 Polk 602,095 Putnam 74,364 Santa Rosa 10, ,932 Sarasota 379,448 Seminole 422,718 St. Johns 190,039 St. Lucie 277,789 Sumter 93,420 Suwannee 41,551 Taylor 22, Union 15,535 Volusia 466,152 28,441 Wakulla 30,776 Walton 37,781 17,262 Washington 24,896 State of Florida Enhanced Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 3.167

168 VIII. Assessing Vulnerability of State Facilities A vulnerability analysis on sinkholes and seismic events was conducted in the 2013 plan update. To accomplish this task, the first step was to identify the specific counties within the state that were perceived to be vulnerable to the effects of sinkholes and seismic events, and determine their individual levels of vulnerability. Sinkholes For sinkholes, the SHMPAT determined vulnerability for each county in proportion to the total area of sinkholes that have occurred in the county. If no sinkholes were reported for a county in the FGS s SIR database 150 used for the sinkhole analysis, then the SHMPAT determined that the county was not vulnerable. The entire land area of a county containing a historical occurrence of a sinkhole was assumed to be vulnerable. Therefore, a summary of all the insured values within each vulnerable county gave an overview of the relative vulnerabilities for all counties. The analysis researched past sinkhole events and concluded that there are specific areas of the state that have more active occurrences to sinkholes than others do. Due to the infrequency of when a sinkhole event will occur and the inability to accurately forecast a sinkhole event, it was decided to address each county individually based on past historical occurrences. The most active and vulnerable part of Florida to sinkholes was found to be in the central region near the Gulf of Mexico. Additionally, there were significant numbers found along the Suwannee River basin in North Florida and on the eastern edges of Leon and Wakulla Counties. Earthquakes In addition, the SHMPAT used the state facility database to identify which facilities lay within seismic event vulnerability zones. Summarizing the facilities by total counts and insured values within the zones provided estimates of dollar vulnerability by county. Facility counts were summarized by overlaying the geo-coded state facility layer with a layer for earthquake zones (peak ground acceleration as a percent of gravity, with two percent probability of exceedance in 50 years). This approach provided an overall view of the state s vulnerability to these hazards by county. The analysis researched past seismic events and concluded that there are specific areas of the state that have more active occurrences to seismic events than others do. Due to the infrequency of when an seismic event will occur and the inability to accurately forecast an seismic event, the decision was made to address each county individually based on past historical occurrences. Historically, there has been little, if any damage, due to seismic activity in Florida. As Florida facilities are built to strict codes, there would be minimal impact on the facilities if a minor seismic event were to occur, with the possible exception of Escambia County s facilities. 150 FGS SIR Database. State of Florida Enhanced Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 3.168

169 Below are maps representing the number of state facilities in each county vulnerable to peak ground acceleration, and their cumulative values, in Figure 3.40 and Figure Detailed information on facility type by county can be found in Appendix C: Risk Assessment Tables. Figure 3.40 Number of State Facilities Vulnerable to Peak Ground Acceleration Results obtained via GIS analysis of aggregated data sources. State of Florida Enhanced Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 3.169

170 Figure 3.41 Value of State Facilities Vulnerable to Peak Ground Acceleration 152 IX. Estimating Potential Losses by Jurisdiction The 2004 original plan did not perform a loss estimate on a statewide level for sinkholes and seismic events. During the 2010 plan update process, the SHMPAT researched the potential losses related to these geological hazards and collected data to assist with this estimation. These have been updated for the 2013 plan. Sinkholes Table 3.62 shows the vulnerabilities for sinkholes, as originally modeled by Kinetic Analysis Corporation (KAC), along with the overall damage estimates. The data in the table below is several years old, but it is the most current data available for sinkholes. 152 Results obtained via GIS analysis of aggregated data sources. State of Florida Enhanced Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 3.170

171 Table 3.62 Value of Structures KAC Sinkhole Risk (Sinkhole Structures Summary) 153 Zone Total SF Res Mob Home MF Res Commercial Agriculture Govnt/ Institution Low $1122 BI $511.4 BI $12.1 BI $274.4 BI $156.7 BI $92.7 BI $74.8 BI Medium $753.3 BI $367.3 BI $13.6 BI $117.2 BI $118.8 BI $93.0 BI $43.1 BI High $147.5 BI $80.0 BI $2.3 BI $18.0 BI $23.8 BI $19.2 BI $3.9 BI Very High $66.9 BI $37.9 BI $1.3 BI $6.8 BI $8.2 BI $10.4 BI $2.0 BI Extreme $31.5 BI $17.6 BI $606.4 MI $3.0 BI $4.7 BI $4.8 BI $747.3 MI Adjacent $1.2 BI $832 MI $29.4 MI $142.4 MI $161.5 MI $57.4 MI $40.5 MI SHMPAT Sinkhole Research As part of the loss estimation, the SHMPAT coordinated with FGS for current data on sinkholes. Using the state-maintained SIR database as the baseline, the team determined that there were 3,378 reported sinkholes in Florida as of August In order to estimate losses, the team researched the sinkholes that were relatively large. Using a 50-foot depth as a dividing line, the team found 67 sinkholes throughout the state that met that depth parameter. As of January 2013, DEM and the FGS have begun talking about completing a new sinkhole study for the State of Florida. As information from the study becomes available it will be integrated into the risk assessment and distributed to county partners. Earthquakes For earthquake values by structure, the 2013 plan will use Hazus-MH 2.1 with 2010 demographics information to replace the previous table showing structures, by occupancy type based on the 50-year earthquake. Appendix C: Risk Assessment Tables contains this detailed breakdown of values, by county, peak ground acceleration percentage and occupancy type. X. Estimating Potential Losses of State Facilities Sinkholes Sinkhole events are prevalent across all parts of the State of Florida and there is no way of knowing where future sinkholes might appear. Because of this, the state and its facilities continue to be vulnerable to potential losses caused by sinkholes, placing billions of dollars in property at risk. Earthquakes Earthquake events are rare in the State of Florida, and state facilities continue to be minimally vulnerable to future potential losses caused by earthquakes. Appendix C: Risk Assessment Tables contains the detailed analysis, based on Hazus-MH 2.1 of the potential value State of Florida Enhanced Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 3.171

172 of impacts to state facilities, by county, facility type, and peak ground acceleration percentage. Table 3.63 is the total value, by county, of those facilities. Table 3.63 Value of Facilities at Risk to Earthquake Hazard 154 County Name Total Value of Total Value of County Name Facilities (Millions $) Facilities (Millions $) Alachua Lee Baker 86.3 Leon Bay Levy 21.3 Bradford Liberty Brevard Madison Broward Manatee Calhoun Marion Charlotte 63.1 Martin Citrus Miami-Dade Clay Monroe Collier Nassau Columbia Okaloosa Desoto Okeechobee Dixie Orange Duval Osceola Escambia Palm Beach Flagler Pasco Franklin Pinellas Gadsden Polk Gilchrist Putnam Glades 1 Santa Rosa Gulf Sarasota Hamilton Seminole Hardee St. Johns Hendry St. Lucie Hernando Sumter Highlands Suwannee Hillsborough Taylor Holmes Union Indian River Volusia Jackson Wakulla Jefferson Walton Lafayette Washington 83.7 Lake Results obtained via GIS analysis of aggregated data sources. State of Florida Enhanced Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 3.172

173 Tsunami Profile I. Tsunami Description and Background Information A tsunami is a series of waves created when a body of water, such as in an ocean, is rapidly displaced. A tsunami has a much smaller amplitude (wave height) offshore, and a very long wavelength (often hundreds of kilometers long), which is why they generally pass unnoticed at sea, forming only a passing "hump" in the ocean. Tsunamis have been historically referred to as tidal waves because as they approach land, they take on the characteristics of a violent onrushing tide rather than the sort of cresting waves that are formed by wind action upon the ocean. Since they are not actually related to tides, the term is considered misleading and its usage is discouraged by oceanographers. There is another phenomenon often confused with tsunamis called rogue waves. There remains debate as to whether these waves are related to tsunamis. They are included in this section as the mitigation plans address the threat in the same relative manner. The characteristics are: Unpredictable nature Little is known about the formation May be caused by regularly-spaced ocean swells that are magnified by currents or the atmosphere Tsunamis are formed as the displaced water mass moves under the influence of gravity and radiates across the ocean like ripples on a pond. These phenomena rapidly displace large volumes of water, as energy from falling debris or energy expansion is transferred to the water into which the debris falls. Tsunamis caused by these mechanisms, unlike the ocean-wide tsunami caused by some earthquakes, generally dissipate quickly and rarely affect coastlines distant from the source due to the small area of sea affected. However, an extremely large landslide could generate a mega-tsunami that might have ocean-wide impacts. The geological record tells us that there have been massive tsunamis in the earth s past. There is often no advance warning of an approaching tsunami. However, since earthquakes are often a cause of tsunamis, an earthquake felt near a body of water may be considered an indication that a tsunami will shortly follow. The first part of a tsunami to reach land is a trough rather than a crest of the wave. The water along the shoreline may recede dramatically, exposing areas that are normally submerged. This can serve as an advance warning of the approaching crest of the tsunami, although, the warning only gives a very short time before the crest, which typically arrives seconds to minutes later. National Geophysical Data Center (NGDC) NOAA s National Geophysical Data Center (NGDC) is building high-resolution digital elevation models (DEMs) for select U.S. coastal regions. These combined bathymetrictopographic DEMs are used to support tsunami forecasting and modeling efforts at the NOAA State of Florida Enhanced Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 3.173

174 Center for Tsunami Research, Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory (PMEL). The DEMs are part of the Short-term Inundation Forecasting for Tsunamis (SIFT) system currently being developed by the PMEL for the NOAA tsunami warning centers, and are used in the Method of Splitting Tsunami (MOST) model developed by the PMEL to simulate tsunami generation, propagation, and inundation. The NWS has two tsunami warning centers: The West Coast and Alaska Tsunami Warning Center in Palmer, Alaska, which covers Alaska south to California and the U.S. Gulf of Mexico and Atlantic Coast. The Pacific Tsunami Warning Center in Ewa Beach, Hawaii, serves as a national/international warning center for tsunamis that pose a Pacific-wide threat and they also are responsible for the Caribbean. Interim Method of Warning: The Alaska Tsunami Warning Center (ATWC) issues a Tsunami Warning if there is an earthquake 7+ on the Richter Scale on/near a coast. The NWS office in Melbourne, Florida, receives the warning via fax and phone call from the ATWC. The NWS in Melbourne disseminates the warning to coastal NWS offices via the dedicated Hurricane Hotline. Affected coastal NWS offices issue a coastal flood warning via the following: All Hazards NOAA weather radios Emergency Alert System Statement transmitted over weather wire to EM officials and the media 155 II. Geographic Areas Affected by Tsunamis Tsunami events occur most often in the Pacific Ocean, but they are a global phenomenon and all are potentially dangerous, though they may not damage every coastline they strike. Analyzing the past 150 years of tsunami records shows that the most frequent and destructive tsunamis to affect the U.S. have occurred along the coasts of California, Oregon, Washington, Alaska, and Hawaii. However, the State of Florida is located within the Caribbean area, and over the past 156 years, the Caribbean has experienced more total tsunami events, which have ultimately resulted in over 2,500 deaths. 156 Overall, Florida has experienced few destructive tsunami or rogue wave events, but there were several small events %3A%2F%2Fwww.srh.noaa.gov%2Fmedia%2Fmlb%2Fpresentations%2FFloridaTsunamis.ppt&ei=R78yUPPcH 4Tg8wTx84Fo&usg=AFQjCNHLP-P9hWKFx9-nlK81iXc51dHzkQ State of Florida Enhanced Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 3.174

175 The SHMPAT found that there are two ways of identifying geographic locations that could be affected by a tsunami event. The first way is to consider the fact that there is scientific evidence that shows that there is the potential for a geological event to take place with Cumbre Vieja in the Canary Islands. If this event were to occur, a large-scale tsunami could affect the United States eastern coastline. If this event were to take place, it is expected that the eastern coastline of the State of Florida would suffer extensive damage and loss of life. Earthquakes are frequently the cause for tsunami events, and because there is no way of knowing exactly when and where future earthquake events might take place, the SHMPAT has concluded that all geographic areas of Florida that border the Atlantic Ocean or Gulf of Mexico are at risk. The following vulnerabilities are organized by threat to the Atlantic Coast, or Gulf Coast and Keys and list the potential causes of a tsunami that would put the state at risk: Florida s Atlantic Coast Puerto Rico Trench Cumbre Vieja Volcano in Canary Islands Azores-Gibraltar Fracture Zone Florida s Gulf Coast and Keys Puerto Rico Trench (minor effect as wave wraps around islands) Large Meteorite into Gulf of Mexico III. Historical Occurrences of Tsunamis Table 3.64 summarizes previous tsunami or rogue wave occurrences that have been in Florida and even notable occurrences nationally and internationally. Table 3.64 Previous Tsunami and Rogue Wave Occurrences Date Information July 7, 1992 Daytona Beach experienced a rogue wave at about 11 p.m. EST. Strollers along the beach and the boardwalk were horrified to see a white wall of water 3 6 meters high come rolling in from the ocean. 157 Between 1,500 and 2,000 vehicles were parked on the beach when the waves struck and all were jammed against the seawall or under the pier. Only 100 damage reports were filed. 20 people were injured. This rogue wave is believed to have been meteorologically induced. March 25, 1995 A rogue wave caused a strong outgoing tide at the mouth of Tampa Bay before an 11 foot rise around 9 a.m. EST. The tide was 1-4 feet above normal south of Tampa Bay to Naples (124 miles) and carried stingrays and jellyfish on the beach. The wave broke about one mile offshore. September 10, 2006 A strong earthquake occurred about 250 miles southwest of Apalachicola, Florida at 8:56 a.m. MST. No reports or sightings of tsunami events were recorded within the state; however, the SHMPAT State of Florida Enhanced Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 3.175

176 Date December 26, 2004 March 11, 2011 Information felt that this type of event should be mentioned as it could have created a tsunami under these conditions, which could have affected the West Coast and Panhandle of Florida. The deadliest event was not a Florida event, but rather happened in Phuket, Thailand. The 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake, which had a magnitude of 9.0 to 9.3, triggered a series of lethal tsunamis that killed approximately 300,000 people (168,000 in Indonesia alone), making it the deadliest tsunami, as well as one of the deadliest natural disasters in recorded history. It also was the second-largest earthquake in recorded history. The initial surge was measured at a height of approximately 33 meters, making it the largest earthquake-generated tsunami in recorded history. The tsunami killed people over an area ranging from the immediate vicinity of the quake in Indonesia, Thailand, and the northwestern coast of Malaysia, to thousands of kilometers away in Bangladesh, India, Sri Lanka, the Maldives, and even as far away as Somalia, Kenya, and Tanzania in eastern Africa. This is an example of a tele-tsunami, which can travel vast distances across the open ocean; in this case, it was an inter-continental tsunami. Tsunami waves at 2.6 meters tall were reported even in places such as Mexico, nearly 13,000 km away from the epicenter. The energies for these waves travel along fault lines and become concentrated, therefore traveling further. Unlike the Pacific Ocean, there was no organized alert service covering the Indian Ocean. This was in part due to the absence of major tsunami events since In light of the 2004 tsunami, UNESCO and other world bodies have called for an international tsunami monitoring system. A magnitude 9.03 earthquake occurred off the coast of Japan, which was the most powerful one in that area to occur since modern record keeping began. The earthquake triggered a series of powerful tsunami waves that devastated large portions of the Pacific coastline of Japan s northern islands. Tsunami waves were estimated to be in excess of 30 meters in certain locations. Japan s National Police Agency lists 15,870 confirmed dead and 92 percent are believed to have died by drowning. IV. Probability of Future Tsunami Events Using data provided by the NGDC tsunami database, it was found that there were at least one or more tsunami or rogue wave events that have occurred along the coast of Florida since 1900, specifically an event that occurred in Daytona Beach on July 7, During that event, there were over 20 people injured, one death, and damage to many cars parked in the area close to the coastline. Because of this and the frequency of prior tsunami events from around the world, it is the SHMPAT s conclusion that the probability of future tsunami events affecting the State of Florida is low. State of Florida Enhanced Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 3.176

177 V LMS Integration The SHMPAT focused on producing a statewide vulnerability analysis based on estimates provided by the Local Mitigation Strategies (LMS). With 67 multi-jurisdictional Local Mitigation Strategy plans, the local risk assessment data provided a solid baseline for the overall state vulnerability analysis. For counties that analyzed tsunamis, all reported low vulnerability and many included the analysis within the Storm Surge or Coastal Flooding portion of their plan. Due to this fact, it was not possible to acquire a vulnerability score for each county. VI. Tsunami Hazard Vulnerability Analysis by Jurisdiction Historically, large-scale tsunami events have not been a major threat to the State of Florida; however, that exposure has increased as more people move into the state in areas of close proximity to the coast. Only one Atlantic-wide tsunami was documented (the 1755 Lisbon earthquake); however, the eastern U.S. has had 40 tsunamis/ rogue waves in the last 400 years, or an average of one event every 10 years. Approximately 33 percent of the total state population lives within 20 miles of the coast, and that number is increasing. The majority of the state s residents are not educated on the warning signs or effects of a tsunami and would be put at a higher risk of exposure should a large-scale event occur. VII. Assessing Vulnerability of State Facilities The state s vulnerability to a tsunami is addressed in this section. After further analysis, the SHMPAT elected to use the coastal flooding analysis as the tsunami analysis due to the limited information available on impacts of tsunamis. The state facility database provided by DFS was used to correlate the number of vulnerable state facilities within each county to the county s specific level of vulnerability, as given in their local mitigation strategies. This information is equivalent to the coastal flooding vulnerability information provided herein. Using this approach allows for the identification and overall view of the state s vulnerability to this hazard by county. VIII. Estimating Potential Losses by Jurisdiction The original plan did not perform a loss estimate on a statewide level for tsunamis. During the 2013 plan update process, no new data or numbers were found by the SHMPAT. State of Florida Enhanced Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 3.177

178 IX. Estimating Potential Losses of State Facilities The SHMPAT did not conduct loss estimations on a tsunami event in 2004 during the original plan development process. During the 2010 and 2013 plan update and revision process, this analysis was included. The following section provides a detailed description of the estimates of potential losses to state facilities from a tsunami. Tsunami events are rare in the State of Florida, and there is no way of knowing when and where future tsunami events might occur. Because of this, the state and its future potential losses to state facilities are assumed to be minimally vulnerable to the effects of a tsunami. The tables within this section show the total exposure and estimated losses of state-owned facilities to a tsunami by county. To estimate potential losses to state facilities, the SHMPAT had to first identify the specific counties within the state that are perceived to be vulnerable to the effects of a tsunami, as well as each county s individual level of vulnerability. For tsunamis, the levels of vulnerability identified by the SHMPAT, using the local mitigation strategy, if available was within this estimated loss analysis. Using the state facility database provided by the Florida DFS, the team overlaid the state facility information into a geographic information system (GIS) to correlate the number of vulnerable state facilities within each county with the county s specific level of vulnerability. These are showing in Table Vulnerability was measured using the impacts of a Category 5 hurricane, given tsunamis impact to coastal counties. This approach allowed the SHMPAT to identify an overall view of the state s estimated losses to this hazard by county. This approach was used for coastal counties only. Table 3.65 State Facility Estimated Losses to Tsunami 158 County Number of Replacement Number of Replacement County Facilities Value Facilities Value Bay 123 $141,240,000 Levy 47 $23,720,000 Brevard 159 $603,120,000 Manatee 89 $345,220,000 Broward 518 $3,283,540,000 Miami-Dade 1235 $7,329,510,000 Charlotte 163 $521,330,000 Monroe 226 $248,260,000 Citrus 90 $98,780,000 Nassau 43 $130,250,000 Collier 212 $822,550,000 Okaloosa 61 $64,280,000 Dixie 6 $8,200,000 Palm Beach 176 $1,096,060,000 Duval 236 $952,510,000 Pasco 43 $168,470,000 Escambia 59 $45,510,000 Pinellas 332 $1,476,180,000 Flagler 56 $116,870,000 Saint Johns 248 $328,630,000 Franklin 120 $37,020,000 Saint Lucie 38 $26,440,000 Gulf 55 $75,010,000 Santa Rosa 26 $56,920, Results obtained via GIS analysis of aggregated data sources. State of Florida Enhanced Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 3.178

179 County Number of Replacement Number of Replacement County Facilities Value Facilities Value Hernando 8 $17,940,000 Sarasota 146 $467,960,000 Hillsborough 217 $1,231,750,000 Taylor 80 $37,590,000 Indian River 36 $102,880,000 Volusia 86 $247,040,000 Jefferson 1 $10,000 Wakulla 41 $32,130,000 Lee 622 $2,222,770,000 Walton 42 $20,010,000 Total 5,640 $22,379,700, Solar Storm Profile I. Solar Storm Description and Background Solar storm is a broad term used to describe a number of atmospheric events that have the potential to adversely affect conditions on earth. These events can include: solar flares, large explosions in the Sun s atmosphere, which can cause radio wave interference, and coronal mass ejections, which occur when a burst of solar wind and magnetic fields are released from the Sun s atmosphere. If the charged particles reach Earth s atmosphere they can cause a wide range of effects including atmospheric aural lights, and consequences ranging from requiring the diversion of air traffic, to the disruption of global positioning systems and other satellite systems, to potentially interfering with the electrical power grid. A 1989 solar storm significantly disrupted the power system in Quebec, Canada, affecting power for approximately 6 million people and costing an estimated $2 billion in total economic impacts. The most recent solar storm on March 8, 2012 caused some air traffic to be re-routed away from polar regions, and dumped a huge amount of energy into the Earth s atmosphere but did not otherwise affect the Earth. In 1859, the most powerful solar storm in recorded history, known as the Carrington Super Flare, occurred causing telegraph systems across Europe and North America to fail. In a 2012 study, researchers concluded that the probability of a Carrington-like event occurring over the next decade is approximately 12 percent. The entire State of Florida and its population and infrastructure is susceptible to solar storms, however, the effect that minor solar events could have on the public, property, environment, and operations would be minimal. If a rare, major solar storm were to occur, there could be a much larger impact on the population, property, and operations. However, the environment would still not be affected. The SHMPAT identified solar storms as a potential emerging threat. Specific details and vulnerabilities are not clearly available at this time, therefore, there is a not a full hazard profile for this plan update. Subsequent updates to the plan will evaluate new data and analysis on the hazard. State of Florida Enhanced Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 3.179

180 Technological Hazards Profile I. Technological Hazards Description and Background Information Technological hazards are those that are caused by tools, machines, and substances that are used every day. The major technological hazards that will be discussed in this section are hazardous materials and radiological accidents. Hazardous Materials Hazardous Materials (HazMat) refers generally to hazardous substances, petroleum, natural gas, synthetic gas, and acutely toxic chemicals. The term Extremely Hazardous Substance (EHS) is used in Title III of the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986 to refer to those chemicals that could cause serious health effects following short-term exposure from accidental releases. With the passage of the Federal Emergency Planning and Community Right-To-Know Act (EPCRA) in 1986, the division began implementation of a statewide Hazardous Materials Emergency Planning Program. For the first time, passage of the EPCRA allowed emergency planners, responders, and the public access to facility-specific information regarding the identification, location, and quantity of particular hazardous materials at fixed sites. The law requires facilities with threshold quantities of federally mandated substances to report annually to state and local emergency officials. In addition, facilities must immediately notify officials of any releases of harmful chemicals that have the potential to result in offsite consequences. This information is utilized to prepare emergency plans for hazardous materials incidents, to allow responders to receive training based on specific known threats, and to inform and educate the public regarding the chemicals present in their communities. Florida has more than 4,500 fixed facility locations that report the presence of an EHS in federally mandated threshold amounts. There are a total of 30,638 miles of pipeline within Florida. The vast majority (91 percent) of pipelines in the state carry natural gas. Energy pipelines are a fundamentally safe and efficient means of transporting material key to the U.S. energy supply but, given that they often carry toxic, volatile, or flammable material, energy pipelines have the potential to cause injury and environmental damage. Between 2002 and 2011, there were 36 serious or significant pipeline incidents in Florida, resulting in one fatality, eight injuries, and a total of $8,126,666 in property damage. Table 3.66 and Table 3.67 summarize the information and commodities of pipelines while Figure 3.42 illustrates the pipelines in Florida. State of Florida Enhanced Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 3.180

181 Table 3.66 Total Pipeline Mileage in Florida Pipeline System Mileage Hazardous liquid line mileage 475 Gas transmission line mileage 4,871 Gas distribution mileage (851,042 total services) ,291 Total pipeline mileage 30,638 Table 3.67 Total Pipeline Mileage by Commodity Commodity Pipeline Miles Percent Anhydrous Ammonia HVL Crude Oil Natural Gas 4, Refined Products Total 5, Figure 3.42 Natural Gas Infrastructure in Florida 159 The miles of gas distribution service lines (the connection between the distribution line and the end user) are not included in the Gas distribution mileage. The total number of such services is provided. State of Florida Enhanced Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 3.181